MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL Versus State

ORDER

SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J .---This is Jail Petition by Muhammad Shakeel convict against the judgment dated 4-11-2008 of the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby dismissing the appeal of the ,petitioner, his conviction and sentence of death as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi vide his judgment dated 30-1-2002 'was continued.

2. The circumstances in which the petitioner faced trial of the allegation of committing murder of Mst. Raheela Bibi as paraphrased by the learned Division Bench of the High Court are that:

"On the day of occurrence i.e. 8-7-2002 at about 7-15 a.m. he along with his daughter Mst. Raheela Bibi deceased was standing on Bus Stop Choora bazaar, Thoon for going to the office of the Project Manager, Kotli Sattian in connection with hearing to obtain divorce by Mst. Raheela Bibi deceased, who was married to Muhammad Shakeel accused. She remained in the house of the accused for about 4-1/2 years and then came to the house of the complainant due to the differences between the spouses. It is alleged that the accused Shakeel Ahmad came to his house and injured Mst. Raheela Bibi deceased in the year 1998 upon which case was got registered against the accused for committing murderous attack and the accused was sent to Jail after his arrest and later on acquitted on account of compromise. During the period when Shakeel accused was in Jail, Mst. Raheela Bibi filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against him, which was decreed in her favour. It is alleged that in the said connection they were present at the above mentioned place when Muhammad Shakeel accused while armed with Chhura cane there and raised lalkara to teach a lesson for obtaining divorce and registration of case. The accused then inflicted various Chhura blows on the person of Mst. Raheela Bibi, which hit on different parts of her body. It is also alleged that when the complainant came ahead to rescue Mst. Raheela Bibi, the accused Muhammad Shakeel also gave him Chhura blows, which hit him on abdomen and fingers of left hand. The complainant raised alarm, which attracted Mohsaneen and Muhammad Karim P.Ws., who came there and witnessed the occurrence. On seeing the P.Ws. Muhammad Shakeel fled away towards Jungle while waiving Chhura."

3. F.I.R. No.88 of 2000 was lodged at Police Station Kotli Sattian on the same date. S.-I. Khurshid Baig SHO, (P.W.15) proceeded to the place of occurrence and undertook necessary exercise and eventually arrested the petitioner on 16-7-2000 and then got recovered Chhura (Exh.P/1) and after investigation he was challaned for facing trial. In all fifteen witnesses were produced by the prosecution, out of whom, Shahid Nawaz Patwari P.W.I, had prepared the site plan, Muhammad Qayyum (P.W.3), was the witness of recovery of crime weapon, Dr. Sajid Latif (P .W.7), had medically examined Muhammad Mir complainant and father of the victim, Dr. Shamim Akhtar Qureshi (P.W.9), had conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body, Muhammad Karim (P.W.12) and Muhammad Mohsineen (P.W.13), were the eye-witnesses whereas Amjad Hussain (P.W.14), was recovery witness and Khurshid Baig SHO (P.W.15), had conducted investigation. The petitioner while recording his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. came out in reply to question No.13 with the plea that: "my wife Mst. Raheela Bibi deceased had developed illicit relations with one Asif son of Mohsaneen P.W. and when this fact came into my knowledge, I rebuked her and asked her to mend her way and to lead a noble and honourable life, but she instead of following the right direction roped me in case under section 324, P.P.C. in connivance with said Asif and I was confined to Jail. During my confinement she continued her illicit relations with said Asif without any hindrance. Not only this she also filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against me during my absence and got ex parte decree in her favour. The instant case is also registered against me by the complainant, who is real father of the deceased just to take advantage of cold relations and bad blood between the spouses as known to every one and also to escape the real culprit from the involvement in the occurrence. The private P.Ws. are kins of the deceased Mst. Raheela Bibi. All the prosecution story is concocted and hatched to drag me in the instant case. The alleged recovery is falsely planted upon me for ulterior motives."

4. It is the statement of the petitioner, which is sought to be highlighted by the learned counsel to cast doubt about the prosecution version. He also has brought to our notice that it was not "Chhura" but a "Chhuri", which could not have caused such fatal injuries.

5. We have heard the learned counsel at a considerable length and with his assistance gone through the evidence produced by the prosecution. His objection that Muhammad Mir the complainant, the father of the victim was not produced by the prosecution, need no serious consideration, as it stands repelled by the fact that while the trial was in progress, he had died. It may be mentioned that he had also suffered injuries in the same occurrence and later died thus by no means, he could be produced as a witness. Adverting to the conviction of the petitioner, it may be observed that Muhammad Karim P.W.12 and Muhammad Mohsaneen P.W.13, gave the eye witness account of the occurrence, who though were related to the deceased and the complainant, their testimony was believed by the trial Court. Mere having such relationship did not discredit their testimony, when it was found consistent and corroborated by other evidence. Muhammad Qayyum (P.W.3) was the witness of recovery, who had deposed that he along with Police party "went in a police vehicle to Choora Bazar and from there by getting down from the Police vehicle we went on foot to Dhoke Kakrosh Dakhli Thoon and then on the pointation of Shakeel accused there was a room towards West in the house of the accused the accused led to the recovery of a Chhura Exh.P.1 which was blood stained from underneath a wooden 'Paity' and produced it before the Police which was taken into possession by Police after sealing the same in a parcel." That was the crime weapon, whether it be called "Chhura" or "Chhuri" could not be of any material significance nor will make any difference as the same was used in the commission of crime, which according to the report was "stained with human blood". So far as the defence version as brought forth in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. is concerned, it has been found by the learned High Court that nothing was produced before the Court to substantiate the same and even statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. was not made by him. It thus did not deserve much significance.

6. We have no reason to differ with the approach adopted by the High Court on this aspect of the matter as considering the evidence produced by the prosecution, the ocular account, the recovery of crime weapon (Chhura/Chhuri), the medical evidence, the conclusion was quite obvious that the petitioner had committed the murder of the deceased for which he was convicted and sentenced.

7. Finding no justification to interfere, we find ourselves persuaded to dismiss this petition. Leave is declined accordingly.

N.H.Q./M-73/SC Leave refused.