THE STATE Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
ORDER
Muhammad Siddique respondent was tried on the charge of murder of Muhammad Sabir, deceased, in District Criminal Court, Muzaffarabad, and was acquitted on July 20, 1988. The State has preferred an appeal against acquittal.
2. Muhammad Mumtaz made a report at Police Station Garhi Dupatta on July 13, 1982 to the effect that Mumtaz, Muhammad Arif, Sabir Hussain. (deceased) visited the shop of Sher Zaman at 2‑20 p.m. Muhammad Siddique (respondent) was already present in the shop. He purchased two water‑melons from the shop. He reprimanded Sabir Hussain and said that a sum of Rs.30, payable by Sajid, his brother, as price of apricots, to him, must be paid by Sabir Hussain on the same day. Sabir Hussain agreed to pay the amount, on which Muhammad Siddique left ahead of them. Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Hanif, his brother, arrived in their apple orchard. Muhammad Siddique was carrying a stick. The moment the complainant, the deceased and Muhammad Arif reached close to the orchard, Muhammad Siddique started abusing them and threatened that he would receive the amount on the same day, Sabir Hussain ran away from the site towards the house of Maqsood Ahmad and brought him on the spot. Meanwhile, Muhammad Siddique gave beating to Mumtaz and Muhammad Arif. On arrival of Maqsood Ahmad,,Mst. Khatoon Begum, Mst. Hashi and Mst. Sabeeha also arrived on the scene and stopped the quarrel. They left for their home. Jahandad also saw . the incident. Sabir Hussain left towards the house of Mian, tailor, to get money from him in order to pay to Muhammad Siddique. Muhammad Siddique followed him. The complainant, Muhammad Arif and Maqsood Ahmad also followed them so that Muhammad Siddique may not assault Sabir Hussain. On teaching near the water spring, they saw Muhammad Siddique taking up a stone and striking it on the chest of Sabir Hussain. It was followed by blows with kicks and fists. One of the blows hit in the abdomen of Sabir Hussain, on which he fell down. Muhammad Siddique ran away and went to the house of Sooba. The complainant and his companions arrived on the scene but by then Sabir Hussain had expired.
3. Muhammad Siddique, respondent, was put to trial. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution produced Muhammad Mumtaz (complainant), Muhammad Arif, Maqsood Ahmad and Mst. Sabeeha Begum as eye‑witnesses, in addition to Jahandad, Dr. Malik Mahmood Ahmad, Bashirullah Khan, S.H.O. Garhi Dupatta, Munshi Aziz‑ur‑Rehman, Patwari, Muhammad Jamshed, Zahoor Ahmad and Sher Muhammad. In defence, Muhammad Siddique produced Muhammad Hanif Kiani, Muhammad Khan and Khani Zaman. Sooba Khan and Mst. Hashi were given up as unnecessary witnesses.
4. Sardar Muhammad Sadiq Khan, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the trial Court misdirected itself in ignoring the ocular evidence, sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged offence of murder. It was suggested that the trial Court misread the evidence in recording the order of acquittal. Raja Sher Muhammad Khan, the learned Counsel for defence controverted the objections raised by the learned Additional Advocate=General and argued that the immediate cause of the occurrence was suppressed by tae prosecution. The origin of the fight was shrouded in mystery. The motive was not proved. The eve‑witnesses made material contradictions in their testimony. He supported the finding of the trial Court.
5. Motive is just a speculation leading to an inference resulting in an occurrence. Ordinarily, there is always presence of motive in au action of violence resulting in murder or bodily injuries. These may be cases in which motive may not be found despite the killing of innocent persons. Therefore, presence of motive may not be a fact. But once motive was alleged, it was enjoined upon the prosecution to prove it beyond reasonable suspicion.
6. In present case, according to prosecution, the motive for the murder was payment of Rs.30, the amount payable by Sajid, brother of Sabir Hussain, deceased, to Muhammad Siddique, the price of apricots purchased by him. There is no evidence to the effect that the amount in question was in Act payable by Sajid, brother of Sabir Hussain. The evidence of the eye‑witnesses is in the manner that Muhammad Siddique was insistent on taking the amount from Sabir Hussain on the same day. It is, therefore, noticed that despite the fact that Sabir Hussain was not the borrower of the amount, the amount was demanded from him by the accused. The introduction of motive wasl improbable as the amount in question was neither borrowed by the deceased nor he was a surety for the same. Moreover, according to the testimony of the eye‑witnesses, when Sabir Hussain, deceased, agreed to pay the amount, there was hardly a reasonable cause of attacking him in the manner ascribed to Muhammad Siddique respondent. Thus, the allegation of motive was quite improbable and doubtful.
7. It is noticed that in addition to the deceased, Mumtaz Hussain (complainant), and Muhammad Arif, Muhammad Hanif, brother of Muhammad Siddique, was also injured. He was medically examined alongwith Muhammad Arif and Mumtaz Hussain. The doctor found four injuries on his person. All the injuries were in the shape of bruises inflicted on different parts of his body. The nature of injuries was simple and the weapon used in infliction of much injuries was given as blunt. Muhammad Mumtaz suffered two injuries; one an abrasion on left cheek and the other a bruise on left side posterior of chest. These injuries were simple having been caused with blunt weapon. Muhammad Arif also suffered three bruises on lower jaw, left shoulder and on the back of chest, left side. That suggests that in fact there was a free fight among the eye‑witnesses, Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Siddique. The cause of fight was definitely suppressed, as the motive for infliction of such injures, described by the eye‑witnesses, was illogical and irrelevant. Thus, the actual cause of the quarrel was suppressed by the eye‑witnesses and in order to make the issue gruesome, the motive for payment of amount of Rs.30 was introduced.
8. Sabir Hussain, deceased, suffered nine injuries. Injury No.l was an abrasion 1" x 1/2" on the posterior, upper side of neck; injury No.7 was a bruise 1" x 1/2" on the left lower front of chest. The other injuries were in the nature of abrasions, while injuries Nos. 5 and 6 were bruises. All the injuries were simple except injuries Nos. 1 and 7. According to the post‑mortem report, Sabir Hussain succumbed to injuries Nos. 1 and 7 as they resulted in dislocation of atlantoexial joint (spinal cord and medulla ablongata resulting in respiratory and cardiac failure. All the injuries were caused with blunt weapon. The duration between injuries and death was 30 minutes and between death and post‑mortem 12 to 36 hours.
9. According to the written first information report made by Muhammad Mumtaz, an alleged eye‑witness, Muhammad Siddique, respondent, took up a stone and struck it on the chest of Sabir Hussain. It was followed by kicks and fists. One of the kicks at the abdomen, on which Sabir Hussain fell down. In his evidence before the Court, the witness changed the manner of attack. It was disclosed that after the first incident, which took place in the shop of Sher Zaman and thereafter the quarrel in which the witness received injuries, they left for their home. On reaching close to the orchard belonging to the respondent, Muhammad Siddique jumped from the orchard by scaling its wall. and attacked Sabir Hussain, deceased. Sabir Hussain brought Maqsood on the site. They were followed by the mother of Muhammad Siddique, Mst. Sabeeha Begum, Mst. Hashi Begum and Jahandad. The incident of meeting of the assailant with the deceased and the eye‑witnesses inside the shop of Sher Zaman was not supported by Sher Zaman who appeared in defence. The second stage of the incident which took place near the orchard of the accused was twisted as the injuries caused to Muhammad Hanif, brother of Muhammad Siddique, were suppressed. Moreover, in the first information report, only one blow with stone was disclosed. In evidence, it was deposed that the accused caused stone blows on the neck, chest and other parts of the body of the deceased. A definite improvement was made by the eye‑witnesses. Likewise, the eye‑witnesses made improvements in relation to the actual incident by omitting the same in their statements before the police.
10. According to the eye‑witnesses, at the time of infliction of fatal injury to Sabir by the accused, they were very close to them. They were threatened by Muhammad Siddique that in case they intervened, they would also be given beating. The narration of the incident appears to be unnatural and false as Muhammad Siddique was alone whereas the eye‑witnesses and the deceased being four in number, could not become victim of violence caused by Muhammad Siddique. This suggests that unless they were coward or callous, Sabir Hussain could not have been allowed to become victim of violence in presence of these three persons, who were his close relatives. The testimony of Muhammad Arif also suffers from identical improvements, contradictions and omissions.
11. A strange aspect of the story of prosecution is that when Sabir Hussain fell down, none of the eye‑witnesses, who were allegedly seeing the incident, approached. him to give him protection or help him while he was lying prostrate on the road. All the eye‑witnesses rather ran away to the village to inform the villagers of the incident. It is admitted to the witnesses that a Suzuki driver arrived on the scene. He saw Sabir Hussain lying on the road and informed the villagers of the condition of the deceased. Besides, it was admitted that a bus, on its way to Muzaffarabad, stopped near the place where Sabir Hussain was lying on the road. The bus driver and some of the passengers alighted from the bus and they shifted Sabir Hussain from the road to one of its banks. Sabir Hussain died after arrival of the bus driver and the passengers. Muhammad Hanif Kiani, bus driver, appeared in defence. According to his testimony, he found an unidentified person lying on the road. He believed that the person fell down on account of effect of heat stroke. One of the passengers put some water in the mouth of Sabir Hussain but without success. Sabir Hussain expired in their presence. Thereafter some persons from the locality arrived there. The S.H.O. of Police Station Garhi Dupatta also arrived and took the dead body into his custody, on which the driver and the passengers left the site. Muhammad Hanif, bus driver, was an independent and impartial witness. His presence was admitted to the eye‑witnesses. His testimony was not challenged in cross‑examination nor the prosecution's version was put to him in the manner of suggestions by the Public Prosecutor. Thus, when ‑an interested and inimical testimony of eye‑witnesses is put in juxtaposition to the testimony of the bus driver, whose presence was admitted to the prosecution, the evidence of the eye‑witnesses is not found credible.
12. Jahandad, P.W. deposed that he saw Muhammad Arif, Mumtaz and Sabir sitting on the road when he came out of mosque after saving Zohr prayers. He was accompanied by Shah Zaman, Lambardar. While coming back from the house of Lambardar, he saw Muhammad Siddique, Arif, Hanif and Mumtaz quarrelling with each other. He stopped them from quarrelling and went home. After some time, he was informed about the incident. He visited the place where the dead body of Sabir Hussain was lying. By that time, the bus had left the place and various people had assembled there. He was not an eye witness of the incident resulting in the death of Sabir Hussain. Thus, his testimony provided no corroboration to the related, interested and inimical eye‑witnesses (Mumtaz, Muhammad Arif and Maqsood).
13. Mst. Sabeeha Begum is the wife of Maqsood. This witness testified in support of the incident which took place near the orchard of the accused. She was not an eye‑witness of the incident of death. In answer to a question in cross‑examination, however, the witness volunteered to become an eye‑witness of the incident of infliction of injuries to Sabir Hussain, deceased. In second thought, she denied having seen the incident relating to the death of Sabir Hussain. She was also related, interested and inimical witness.
14. It is an accepted rule of law that an order of acquittal passed by trial Court is not lightly disturbed, unless the finding is found perverse and absurd. The trial Court records the evidence of the witnesses. Thus, it is well conversant with the demeanour of the witnesses appeared before it. Therefore, weight has to be given to its finding. In present case, the finding of the trial 8 Court has not been assailed on the ground of misreading, non‑reading or misconstruing of evidence resulting in error of law. It is, therefore, not disturbed.
There is no force in the appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed:
N.H.Q./522/H.C.A Appeal dismissed