RAFIQUE AHMAD vs SHABIR HUSSAIN alias SHAUKAT ALI and 2 others
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gojra, which dismissed his private complaint filed under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the respondents waylaid and fatally shot the deceased. However, the trial court found material contradictions between the narrative in the private complaint and the complainant's earlier application for registration of a criminal case (FIR). The trial court accepted the defense's version that the firing was done in self-defense from within the house, noting that the complainant party had also murdered a relative of the accused in the same transaction, for which one of the complainant's companions was convicted and sentenced to death. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court properly discarded the contradictory stands of the complainant and that there was no illegality, misreading, or perversity in the trial court's appreciation of the evidence.
- Whether a private complaint can be dismissed if the complainant's narrative materially contradicts his earlier statement made during the police investigation?
- Can a plea of self-defense be accepted if the evidence shows the deceased was shot inside the accused's house during a mutual clash?
- What is the effect of material contradictions between an application for registration of an FIR and a subsequent private complaint on the prosecution's case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.---The petitioner seeks Special Leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 21-7-2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gojra whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Against Shabbir Hussain and others, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a private complaint against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Ghulam Hussain and Qamar Hussain sons of Noor Muhammad for murder of Maqsood Ahmad on 11-5-2002. The case of the complainant in the complaint was that on 11-5- 2000 at 1-00 p.m., a quarrel took place between Maqsood Ahmad (deceased), Manzoor Ahmad on one side and Nazir Ahmad, Noor Ahmad on the other side, but the quarrel was set at rest by the intervention of the neighbours. Hearing the hue and cry Messrs Mahmood Ahmad, Hafeez Ahmad, Adil Mujtaba of the village also reached there. After the dispute, the complainant along with his companions were going back to their houses, when reached in front of the house of Shabbir Hussain respondent No.1, suddenly Shabbir Hussain armed with Rifle, Ilyas armed with .12 bore gun, Muhammad Irfan with Sota, Ghulam Hussain armed with .30 bore Pistol and Qamar Hussain armed with `Khunjar' emerged there. Muhammad Ilyas raised lalkara that they were going to give taste of injuring Nazir Ahmad and Noor Muhammad. -On that Muhammad 'Irfan gave sota blow to Maqsood Ahmad which hit on his forehead, who fell on the ground face downward. Shabbir Hussain fired with his rifle which hit on the back side of addomen of Maqsood Ahmad and exit from the front side of abdomen. Maqsood Ahmad was seriously injured. He ws taken to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad where he succumbed to the injuries at 3-30 a.m. On 12-5-2000.
3. The trial Court summoned respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and framed the charge and recorded the evidence. Thereafter the prosecution examined six witnesses and after closing the prosecution evidence, the. Trial Court recorded the statements of the accused/respondent under section 342 of Cr.P.C. And proceeded to dismiss the complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial Court has committed illegality by placing reliance on the statements of the P. Ws. Recorded in the challan case. He has further argued that the evidence produced by the complainant has been wrongly disbelieved.
5. I have given due consideration to the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant and has also examined the record.
6. The learned trial Court has noticed in para. No.8 of the judgment that whether version introduction by the complainant in the complaint is the same version which was adopted by him during the investigation of the case, registered vide F.I.R. No. 199, on the same day, against Muhammad Shafi father of Muhammad Ilyas is the complainant. By comparing the application annexure D.A. Moved by the complainant for registration of criminal case with which he was duly confronted the story narrated in the complaint is completely different. In annexure D.A.
The case of the complainant that Ghulam Hussain armed with pistol, Qamar Hussain armed with dagger, Muhammad Ilyas armed with gun .12 bore, Shabbir Hussain alias Shoukat armed with .222 bore rifle and Irfan armed with sota way-laid the complainant party. Irfan gave Sota blow on the head of Maqsood whereafter Ghulam Hussain caught hold of Maqsood from his arm, Qamar Hussain and Irfan accused grappled with him,, Maqsood was dragged into their houses who succeeded to escape. The accused party raised lalkara and Shabbir alias Shoukat made a fire hitting at the back of abdomn of Maqsood Ahmad and thereafter Maqsood Ahmad was thrown out of the house. I have noticed that the story stated by the complainant in his statement and complaint is entirely different. The learned trial Court has believed the motive of the challan case. It was also rightly held that case of Shabbir alias Shoukat was that he made fire from inside the house of his self-defence which hit Maqsood Ahmad deceased. It was concluded that Maqsood Ahmad was taken away by Manzoor and on the way it was found that Ghulam Nabi who was brother-in-law of Shoukat, to take revenge, was murdered by the complainant party and Manzoor has been convicted and sentenced to death. While the co-accused has been acquitted. The trial Court has rightly held that by believing the story in the challan case the contradictory stand of the complainant was to be discarded.
7. No illegality or misreading or misappropriation in evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. The judgment is not perverse, warranting interference, therefore, this appeal stands dismissed. .