GHULAM RASOOL Versus State

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J--- The appellant being an accused of committing murder of Mst. Shazia and injuring Mst. Bushra was booked through F.I.R. No.115 dated 3-3-2000 got registered by Muhammad Yaqoob, the brother-in-law of the deceased; after the trial he has been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court vide judgment dated 11-6-2002 under Section 302 (b), P.P.C. to death and pay Rs.100,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A Cr.P.C. or in default thereof to further undergo six months' S.I. and under section 324, P: P. C. five years' Rigorous Imprisonment for launching murderous attack on the person of Mst. Bushra P.W. and a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default thereof to further undergo six months' S.I. His appeal before the High Court has failed on 9-4-2008, while the Murder Reference was responded in affirmative by confirming the death sentence.

2. The brief facts of the case are, that Muhammad Yaqoob complainant in his statement (Exh.PA) which culminated into the F.I.R. stated that he is a Waiter in the Defence Club, Lahore and is putting up with family along with his (sister-in-law) "Salee" Mst. Shazia. The appellant, who was Mamozad of Mst. Shazia, asked for her hand but on refusal borne a grudge and he many a time threatened of dire consequences. On the fateful day i.e. 3-3-2000 at about 6-00 a.m., the complainant when after his duty reached his house, he witnessed the occurrence whereby the accused fired a shot through 12 bore gun, which hit Mst. Shazia, who succumbed to the injuries; the second shot by him injured Mst. Bushra, (sister of Shazia) the wife of the complainant, who was hit on the little finger of her right hand. On hearing the noise Muhammad Nadeem (P.W.6) the real brother of the two ladies reached the spot and witnessed the appellant causing firearm injury to Mst. Bushra, Muhammad Hussain P.W. also saw the accused running from the place of occurrence as he could not be apprehended when attempt was so made; F.I.R. in the case was got registered at 7-20 a.m. on the same day; whereas the dead body was sent for the postmortem to the hospital at 9-45 a.m., however, the postmortem was conducted, after some time. Be that as it may, on account of the ocular evidence coupled with recovery of empties which duly matched with the gun recovered from the appellant; corroborated by postmortem report of the deceased and medical report of Mst. Bushra; the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above. Leave in the case was granted on 27-5-2009 to scrutinize the evidence in the light of the submissions made, that the venue of the occurrence was different as it was found during the investigation that the dead body was lying in the room, while the blood stained earth was taken from the courtyard. Moreover, there was a delay of 26 hours in conducting the postmortem of the deceased; and whether the F.I.R. was registered after due deliberation and consultation to falsely implicate the accused-appellant.

3. Heard. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it is improbable that the complainant, who was a Waiter. in Defence Club, Lahore would come to the house at 6' o clock because during those days the sun rise at 6.28 a.m. whereas his duty hours would end later to that time; that there is no explanation as to the delay about the postmortem conducted after about 26 hours of the occurrence; that there are contradictions in the statement of Mst. Bushra, the alleged injured witness (sister of the deceased); Muhammad Nadeem, the brother thereof and the complainant Muhammad Yaqoob on account of which the case falls within the realm of being doubtful in nature, the benefit whereof should be given to the appellant.

4. There is no delay in the registration of the F.I.R. which has been registered within about one and half hour of the occurrence; the argument about the duty hours of the complainant and the improbability of his returning home at the time of occurrence is assumptions, as the appellant neither through the cross-examination conducted to complaint has established this fact nor has produced any proof about this in defence. The ocular account of the incident by the complainant, as also Mst. Bushra who has been injured, and whose affected finger was amputated and has sustained permanent disability is a natural witness of the occurrence, she has unequivocal deposed against the appellant, who is also her cousin, (Mamozad) therefore, the false implication of the appellant in the matter is not an impressive plea. As far as the delay in the postmortem is concerned, the dead body was brought to the hospital at 9-45 a.m. and if, for some reason may be administrative or due to the lack of the Doctors/Staff, the postmortem was conducted later, it would not render the case of doubtful in nature, so as to ignore the strong ocular evidence, including the statement of injured lady; Muhammad Nadeem P.W., the real brother of the deceased and Muhammad Hussain P.W. who saw the appellant fleeing from the place of occurrence. As far as the recovery of the blood stained earth from the courtyard is concerned, this aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the Courts below and it has been factually found that it was collected from the courtyard and also from the room. Therefore, on this account too no case for interference is made out. From our reading of the ocular evidence as a whole, corroborated by the Forensic Science Laboratory report, and also postmortem and medical reports, the guilt of the appellant is conclusively established beyond doubt, and therefore the conviction and sentence awarded by the courts below are unexceptionable not calling for interference by this Court.

5. Resultantly, this appeal, being devoid of merits is, accordingly, dismissed.

N.H.Q./G-8/SC Appeal dismissed.