Liaqat Ali and another vs The State and others

MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Prosecution case against the convict-appellant Liaqat Ali as divulged from the contents of FIR, which was registered on written application (Ex.PB/1) of complainant Muhammad Kabeer , is that on 16.09.2006 at about 06.00 p.m., he was sitting in the house of his nephew Muhammad Nawaz, when appellant along with Mumtaz Ali and Manzoor Ahmad armed with their respective weapons entered the premises while raising lalkaras. Appellant Liaqat Ali with his rifle 222 bore fired at Muhammad Nawaz, which landed at his flank after passing through his right arm. Muhammad Nawaz in injured condition was taken to hospital at Changa Manga by complainant and others, wherefrom he was referred to Jinnah Hospital, Laho re. Muhammad Nawaz later on succumbed to injuries.

2. The appellant and his co-accused were accordingly charged for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian, District Kasur . A regular trial was conducted and on its conclusion, the learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 20.03.2012, convicted the appellant and his co-accused Mumtaz Ahmad under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. Appellant Liaqat Ali was sentenced to death whereas Mumtaz Ahmad was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Both of them were also directed to pay compensation of Rs.100,000/- each to the legal heirs of deceased, in default whereof to undergo SI for six months each. Appellant Liaqat Ali and Mumtaz Ahmad were further convicted under section 459, P.P.C. and sentenced to 10 years RI each, with fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo SI for six months each. Benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure was extended to them. Sentences of co-convict Mumtaz Ahmad were ordered to run concurrently . The learned trial Court acquitted co-accused Manzoor Ahmad by extending him benefit of doubt. Aggrieved of their convictions and sentences, the appellant and co-convict Mumtaz Ahmad filed a joint criminal appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore. A murder reference was also sent by the trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of sentence of death of appellant Liaqat Ali. Through the impugned judgment, the learned High Court by giving benefit of doubt accepted the criminal appeal to the extent of Mumtaz Ahmad and acquitted him of the charge. The criminal appeal to the extent of appellant Liaqat Ali was dismissed with the modification that his sentence of death was converted into imprisonment for life. Murder reference was accordingly answered in the negative. Thereafter , the appellant filed a jail petition before this Court, wherein leave was granted on 03.08.2020 and criminal petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence of Liaqat Ali and against acquittal of Mumtaz Ahmed was ordered to be heard along, with instant criminal appeal.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the convict-appellant, learned counsel for the complainant (petitioner in connected petition) and the learned Additi onal Prosecutor General Punjab at length and perusal of available record with their assistance, it has been observed by us that as per prosecution, the occurrence in this case took place on 16.09.2006 at 06.00 p.m. which was reported to police through a written application (Ex.PB/1) by the complainant Muhammad Kabeer on the same night at 09.50 p.m., whereafter formal FIR was registered. The distance between place of occurrence and police station is six kilometers. Muhammad Nawaz in injured condition was medically examined by Dr. Farooq Cheema (PW5) at 06.50 p.m. through police. The doctor (PW5) in his cross-examination admitted that before examining injured Muhammad Nawaz he had gone through the docket/police request for MLC, meaning thereby that matter was already in the knowledge of local police. In the FIR, the complainant has stated that after the occurrence, he along with others took Muhammad Nawaz in injured condition to hospital at Changa Manga where he was provided medical treatment and owing to his precarious condition, the doctor referred him to Jinnah Hospital, Lahore. In his examination in chief, the complainant Muhammad Kabeer (PW4) stated that after the occurrence, Muhammad Nawaz in injured condition was taken to RHC, Changa Manga; that he (PW4) informed police about the occurrence and while going to Changa Manga hospital, he came across police officials. He further stated in his examination in chief that doctor told him to take the injured to hospital at Lahore after issuance of his MLC. The other eye-witness Muhammad Yousaf (PW1) in his examination in chief stated that after the occurrence, he, Muhammad Boota (given up PW) and four other persons took Muhammad Nawaz in injured condition to RHC Changa Manga, wherefrom Muhammad Nawaz was referred to Jinnah Hospital, Lahore. He further stated that others took. Muhammad Nawaz to Jinnah Hospital Lahore, whereas he and complainant Muhammad Kabeer (PW4) came to Police Station Changa Manga and then the police accompanied both of them to place of occurrence. In his cross-examination, Muhammad Yousaf (PW1) stated that he and Iqbal along with Suba lifted Muhammad Nawaz in injured condition and got him boarded in a Rickshaw . According to him, they reached at RHC Changa Manga in about 15 minutes and police reached there instantly as the distance between RHC and police station was 4/5 acres. He stated that no one from them informed the police while taking Muhammad Nawaz to hospital at Changa Manga and someone else had informed the police; that he and Iqbal took Muhammad Nawaz in a Rickshaw; that Suba and two unknown persons also boarded the Rickshaw; that the two unknown persons belonged to their village and the said Rickshaw did not stop anywhere in the way. It has been observed by us that in the MLC (Ex.PD) issued by Dr. Farooq Cheema (PW5), there is no mention of the names of complainant Muhammad Kabeer (PW4) and Muhammad Yousaf (PW1) rather it shows that Muhammad Nawaz was medically examined through Nazir Ahmad 777/C (not produced). In his cross-examinati on, Dr. Farooq Cheema (PW5) stated that according to duration of injuries, the injured Muhammad Nawaz was brought to the hospital after two hours of the occurrence. Besides, the record is totally silent about admission of Muhammad Nawaz in Jinnah Hospital Lahore and his death in that hospital.

4. The complainant Muhammad Kabeer (PW4) is not the inmate of the house. In his cross-examination, he admitted that in his application (Ex.PB/1) he did not mention the purpose of his visit to the house of Muhammad Nawaz on the day of occurrence. Muhammad Yousaf (PW1) claimed in his examination in chief that he along with Muhammad Boota (given up PW) was standing near mosque as he had to collect money from Muhammad Boota when they saw the appellant and his co-accused entering into the house of Muhammad Nawaz with their respective weapons; that they (PWs) chased them into that house and the appellant committed murder of Muhammad Nawaz. In his cross-examination, he stated that his shop was on the main road and he himself managed his shop; that the said shop belonged to Muhammad Rafique, brother of complainant; that the shop was adjoining to the house of Muhammad Rafique which was at a distance of 2/2-1/2 acres from the place of occurrence. He further admitted in his cross-examination that his house was located at a distance of one kilometer from the house of deceased (place of occurrence). He did not explain as to why he had to collect money from Muhammad Boota.

5. The motive set out by the prosecution has not been believed by the learned Courts below by assigning valid and convincing reasons whereas the recovery of rifle 222 bore at the instance of appellant is of no avail to the prosecution because the report of FSL is confined only to its in working condition.

6. All the circumstances highlighted abov e lead us to a definite conclusion that presence of eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time is not free from doubts and the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. The convictions and sentences of appellant Liaqat Ali are set aside. He is acquitted of the charges framed against him. He is behind the bars and is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.

Crl. P . No. 1204-L of 2020

7. After acquittal of applicant Liaqat Ali in the preceding paragraph, the instant crimi nal petition for suspension of his sentence has lost its relevance; which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.

Crl. P . No. 1436-L of 2016

8. In the preceding paragraphs, we have concluded that prosecution case against the respondents is not free from doubt, therefore, instant criminal petition filed by complainant for enhancement of sentence of respondent No.2 Liaqat Ali and against acquittal of respondent No.3 Mumtaz Ahmad is dismissed for being without merit and leave to appeal is refused.