NASIR Versus THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction for causing injuries with a firearm. The petitioner challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment, which had upheld his conviction while modifying the sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their assessment of the prosecution's evidence, specifically regarding the ocular account and its corroboration by medical evidence, and whether the delay in filing the First Information Report (F.I.R.) undermined the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution had proved its case to the hilt through the testimony of the injured witness and other eye-witnesses, whose accounts were consistent with the medical evidence showing ten injuries on the victim. The Court found no illegality or misreading of evidence by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the ocular account, when fully corroborated by medical evidence and where the delay in reporting is satisfactorily explained, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
- Does a delay in filing an F.I.R. necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case if the delay is explained by the need to prioritize medical treatment for the injured?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account of the witnesses is fully corroborated by medical evidence?
- Is it appropriate for an appellate court to order sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively in a criminal case?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 408, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J .---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 6-2-2002 whereby Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 2000 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, with some modification in sentences, earlier passed by the learned trial Magistrate through his judgment dated 26-7-2000.
2. Facts briefly are that F.I.R. No.88 dated 23-3-1996 was got registered at Police Station Sillan Wali of District Sargohda under sections 324/109/337-A(i)(ii)/337-F(ii)(vi), P.P.C. at the instance of Ahmad Sher son of Kameer. It was the case of the complainant that he alongwith his brother Muhammad Khan and Ahmad Sher son of Muhammad Khan were going towards the Dera of Muhammad Khan Dhudhi at 7-30 p.m. When they reached near Railway track, suddenly the petitioner appeared armed with a pistol and caused injuries to complainant's brother Muhammad Khan. The case was investigated and challan was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha against the petitioner and one Allah Rakha. The prosecution, in order to establish its case; examined seven witnesses. The petitioner when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied his participation. The learned trial Magistrate, after thrashing the entire evidence, acquitted the co-accused Allah Rakha and convicted the petitioner with different terms and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for causing injuries on the person of the said- Muhammad Khan, vide judgment dated 26-7-2000. The sentences on each count were ordered to run consecutively. The petitioner filed an appeal under section 408, Cr.P.C. against the said conviction and sentences awarded to him which has been dismissed. However, the sentences awarded to the petitioner have been ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the petitioner. Hence this petition.
2-A. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgments evidence brought on record. It is reflected from the perusal thereof is proved to the hilt by the testimony of Muhammad Khan injured witness alongwith Ahmad Sher son of Kameer (P.W.2) and Ahmad Sher son of Muhammad Khan P.W.3. The injured was examined by Dr. Abdul Ghani, Medical Officer, District Headquarter Hospital who found 10 injuries on his person caused by the petitioner with fire-arias
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or misreading in the assessment of the prosecution evidence in returning the verdict of guilt. The ocular account is totally in line with the medical evidence. The delay as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner has amply been explained by the prosecution. It would be appropriate to mention here that the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has already given concession ' to the petitioner while ordering the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. It would be 'appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge in this regard which is in the following terms:--
"In the instant case the delay in the F.I.R. has been explained by the complainant because according to him after the receipt of so many injuries the injured was taken first to Civil Hospital, Sallanwali and then to Sargodha. The first anxiety of the complainant was to save the life of his brother. Name of the complainant is also mentioned in medico-legal report Exh.P.C. in the relevant column of said report so his presence is established. Muhammad Khan injured is the staff witness of the case. He has fully implicated the appellant in his statement having ten injuries caused by appellant with fire-arm and blunt weapon. I am not going to believe that the complainant and injured would leave or exonerate the actual culprits and would implicate the appellant falsely. Parties were known to each other. There was no question of mistaken identity. Appellant is the only accused in this case. He tried his level best to murder the injured Muhammad Khan but it was his good fortune that he survived. Three eye-witnesses have been produced by the prosecution. Statements of Ahmad Sher and Muhammad Khan injured are corroborated with each other. Ocular account is fully corroborated by medical evidence."
3-A. In view of what has been discussed and noticed above, we do not find any justification, to interfere with the impugned judgment. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave is refused.
N. H. Q./M-112/S Leave refused.