MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUC Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE
The propriety of the judgment, dated 8‑10‑1985 pronounced by Sheikh Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, has been questioned in this appeal, who had convicted Haji, Qadir Bakhsh, Qaim and Hussain Bakhsh appellants under section 302/34 of the P.P.C. and had awarded them life imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each for murdering Allah Jawaya, in furtherance of their common intention, on 25‑8‑1981 at 6‑00 a.m. in the area of village Wahid Bakhsh, Lar, Police Station Sadiqabad, District Rahimyar Khan. The fine, if realised, moiety of the same was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased by way of compensation as envisaged under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. In the event of non‑payment of the said fine, they were directed to suffer three years' R.I. each. The accomplices of the appellants, namely, Allah Rakhia, Ameero alias Meero an Ramzan were, however, acquitted.
2. The facts, which led to the detection of this crime, in substance, are that Allah Jawaya, the real brother of Mehar son of Khundoo complainant, had kept buffaloes and used to sell milk to the owner of Niamat Khan Hotel situate on Karachi‑Lahore‑Peshawar Road within the area of village Wahid Bakhsh Lar. According to his routine; on 25‑8‑1981 in the morning, Allah Jawaya went to deliver milk to the owner of Niamat Khan Hotel and the complainant was with him. After delivering the said milk, they were returning home. Anwar, Ikhtiar and Moosa were also the milk sellers. After selling their milk to the owner of the said hotel, they were also returning home. Allah Jawaya was going ahead of them at a distance of about two Kanals. The complainant, Moosa and Anwar were talking to each other when they were surprised by the appellants and their acquitted accomplices, who were armed with hatchets. They attacked Allah Jawaya. Haji gave a hatchet blow on the left thigh of Allah Jawaya, who fell down, and severed the left arm of Allah Jawaya with his hatchet. Qaim appellant gave blows on the face of Allah Jawaya with his hatchet. Qadir Bakhsh alias Qadra slashed the right arm of Allah Jawaya with his hatchet. The complainant and his companions went forward to save Allah Jawaya but they were intimidated with dire consequences. All the appellants and their accomplices then ran away.
3. The motive for the commission of this crime is stated to be the abduction of the sister‑in‑law of Hassan Bakhsh who was restored with the intervention of the respectables and the appellants suspected that Allah Jawaya was instrument in the abduction of the sister‑m‑law of Hassan Bakhsh. In order to slake the sense of revenge, they injured Allah Jawaya who succumbed to the injuries on the spot when Mehar complainant had left for the police station. Mehar lodged the F.I.R. Exh.P.D./1 which was recorded by Muhammad Akbar, Inspector Police P.W.12, at 8‑15 a.m. on the same day.
4. The police went to the spot, collected the blood‑stained earth and sent the dead body for autopsy to the mortuary. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Abdul Wahab P.W.2, Senior Medical Officer, Tehsil Headquarters Hospital, Sadiqabad, who had observed the following injuries on his corpse:‑
(1) Right forearm cut (detached and lying on cot) at the middle.
(2) Left arm cut (detached lying on cot) above the elbow.
(3) An incised wound cutting the nose upper lip left cheek and left half of lower lip.
(4) An incised wound 4‑1/2" x 2" x skin deep on the front and lower part of left thigh.
(5) An incised wound " x " x skin deep on the front of left leg.
5. This Medical Expert had opined that injuries Nos.1, 2 and 3 individually and all the injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has added that the deceased was not wearing any shirt or Bunyan when he examined him and was only wearing a loin‑cloth. He could not' explain as to why he had given different times‑of death of the deceased as 6‑30 a.m. and 8‑20 a.m. He has explained that he had obtained these timings from the inquest report. He has stated that the deceased could have survived for half an hour only after these injuries and the injuries on the forearm could be the result of one blow or more than one in case of injuries Nos. l and 2.
6. Qaim and Ameero appellants were arrested on 2‑9‑1981 and their blood stained hatchets P.3 and P.4 were taken into possession on 12‑9‑1981 vide memos. Exh.P.E. and Exh.P.F. respectively. Qadir Bakhsh, Haji and Hussain Bakhsh appellants were arrested on 8‑9‑1981 and their blood‑stained hatchets P.5 to P.7 were got recovered on 15‑9‑1981 vide memos. Exh.P.G., Exh.P.H. and Exh.P.I. respectively. Ramzan appellant was arrested on 15‑9‑1981 and Allah Rakhia appellant was arrested on 12‑10‑1981. From Ramzan blood‑stained hatchet P.8 was got recovered on 1‑10‑1981 vide memo. Exh.P.K. After the completion of the investigation, the challan of all the seven accused was submitted. As a sequel to the impugned trial, the appellants were awarded the aforementioned punishment. Allah Rakhia, Ameero and Ramzan were, however, acquitted.
7. Mehar complainant (P.W.8), who is the real brother of the deceased, has narrated to a incident as stated above. He has clarified that all the accused had emerged from a sugarcane crop which had been grown in front of the cotton crop owned by Muhammadan Mehar. He has stated the injuries given by each appellant and has added that all the accused including Ameero, Allah Rakhia and Ramzan had given blows to his brother Allah Jawaya and had amputated his both arms. He has depicted the motive for the commission of this crime that a year before this occurrence, the sister‑in‑law of Hussain Bakhsh was abducted and was subsequently restored and it was suspected that Allah Jawaya deceased got her abducted and, on that account, he was murdered by the appellants and their accomplices. He has stated that Muhammad Anwar P.W. is his sistdr's son whereas Moosa P.W. happens to be his cousin and all of them used to sell milk and there was only one milk pot which the deceased was carrying which had been paced on his turban. He has stated that Mst. Anwar MA who was abducted, is the real sister's wife of Hussain Bakhsh accused and daughter of Abdullah and Abdullah, the father of Mst. Anwar Mai, had also been murdered. He posed ignorance about the fact that Mst. Anwar Mai was, in fact, abducted by Lala, their relative. He conceded the fact that he is one of the accused in the murder case of Abdullah, the father of Mst. Anwar Mai, and he and his father were subjected to physical violence on account of the abduction of Mst. Anwar Mai. he denied the suggestion that one Mst. Latifan had illicit relations with Allah Jawaya deceased. Before the police, he has stated that Mst. Anwar Mai was abducted three years prior to the incident but, at the trial, he has stated that she was abducted a year back. He did not state before the police that Ameero, Allah Rakhia and Ramzan had also given hatchet blows to Allah Jawaya.
8. The complainant has made a material improvement in his statement. The time of abduction of Mst. Anwar Mai has been reduced from three years to one year. The acquitted accused were not given any specific role of injuring Allah Jawaya but, at the trial, he has stated that they had also given blows. There are only five injuries on the dead body of Allah Jawaya and if repeated blows were given by seven accused then the number of injuries should have been much more. His statement and the statements of the other ocular witnesses are inconsistent with the medical evidence on the file. The complainant is an accused in the murder case of Abdullah, the father of Mst. Anwar Mai. He is, apart from being the brother of the deceased, a man of questionable respectability and his deposition lacks reliance.
9. Moosa P.W.9 is the cousin and the sister's husband of Mehar, the complainant, and Allah Jawaya deceased. He has supported the fact that all the appellants had given hatchet blows to Allah Jawaya deceased. He has also exaggerated the fad by stating that all the accused including Ameero, Allah Rakhia and Ramzan had given hatchet blows and had amputated both the arms of Allah Jawaya deceased. He has stated that Ameero, Allah Rakhia and Ramzan had given repeated hatchet blows to Allah Jawaya deceased. He denied the suggestion that the occurrence was not seen by anyone and they were informed of the incident by Faazil Chandio. He has added that Mehar, the complainant, and his father Khundoo were called at the police station as they were suspected of having abducted Mst. Anwar Mai. At the trial, he has stated that he, Anwar, Ikhtiar and Mehar were going together but, before the police, he has stated that the complainant was twenty Karams behind them. At the trial, he has deposed that Haji accused held Lalkara but, before the police, he has stated that all the accused made the Lalkara. He did not state before the police that Allah Rakhia, Ramzan and Ameero had also caused injuries. He has also reduced time of abduction of Mst. Amir Mai from three years to one year, although he had stated before the police that she was abducted three years before this incident.
10. Muhammad Anwar P.W.10, who is the nephew of the deceased, has assigned the role of giving hatchet blows to Ameero, Allah Rakhia and Ramzan, which is inconsistent with the medical evidence and discussed supra. He has stated that all the accused had emerged from a sugarcane field from the northern side although the complainant has stated that they had come from the eastern side. He has stated that the deceased Allah Jawaya was clad in a Chaddar and vest. But' his vest was not found by the doctor, who had performed the autopsy. He is an accused in the murder case of Abddullah and his respectability is questionable.
11. Apart from being the close relatives, the ocular witnesses have exaggerated the incident by implicating the acquitted accused and their statements are inconsistent with the medical evidence. Mehar, the complainant, has stated that the deceased was having a turban over which he had placed the milk‑pot. But that turban was not found nor the police had taken into possession the milk‑pot from the spot. The deceased had carried a single milk‑pot containing the milk belonging to two brothers and there was no necessity of the complainant to have accompanied the deceased to Niamat Khan Hotel as the deceased could go there alone. It is pertinent to note that all the ocular witnesses, who are the close relatives of the deceased, did not make an endeavour to save his life and transport him to the hospital immediately and, surprisingly, the complainant went' to the police station first leaving his brother in a pool of blood with amputated arms. The version put forth by the ocular witnesses is not worth reliance and lacks corroboration from the medical evidence.
12. The motive for the commission of this crime is stated to be the suspicion) regarding the instrumentality of Allah Jawaya deceased in the abduction of Mst. Anwar Mai, the sister‑in‑law of Hussain Bakhsh. That incident of abduction took place three years prior to this incident and it has been stated that it happened a year ago, The file shows that Mst. Anwar Mai was abducted by one Lala and not by Allah Jawaya deceased and having regard to the natural course of events, Lala should have been murdered first. The file slows that the complainant and his father were also subjected to physical violence in relation to the abduction of Mst. Anwar Mai when there was such suspicion against the complainant. No reason has been advanced as to why the complainant did not receive even a scratch from a number of assailants at the time of this incident. The deceased was involved in a murder case of Rahim Bakhsh in the year 1963 and was acquitted. Then he had illicit relations with Mst. Latifan, who had been murdered after this incident. It shows that he had a number of enemies around him and the motive suggested in the F.I.R. does not appear to be true and has not been proved.
13. The site plan shows that the accused had come from different sides but the ocular witnesses have not supported this fact. The recoveries from the appellants and their accomplices have been disbelieved. Muhammad Akbar P.W.12 had gone to appear before the High Court on 12‑9‑1981 and strangely enough, he has recovered the blood‑stained hatchets from Qaim and Ameer Bakhsh on the same date. He was confronted wire the relevant Register No.19 and he could not explain as to why it had been done. Moreover, it is a matter of belated recoveries and it was not expected of the accused to have let their hatchets lie blood‑stained for so much time as they could wash the same during this period. The learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the recoveries of hatchets from the appellants.
14. The investigation of this case appears to be forg6d and dishonest and the reasons for so doing do not appear to be innocent. The ocular witnesses are not trustworthy. They are the close relatives of the deceased and belong to the profession of milk‑sellers. Their statements have not been corroborated by the medical evidence or the recoveries of the hatchets. In Sattaro v. The State P L D 1988 Kar. 350, it was adjudicated that when there was conflict between ocular evidence and the medical evidence and there were legal infirmities in their statement, then the ocular evidence should be disbelieved. In Anwar v. The State 1975 P Cr. L J 750, it was held that when the investigation was dishonest then the prosecution case was held doubtful. Three innocent persons had been involved ink this case, which proves the prosecution story of the murder doubtful. It appears, that nobody had seen this incident and it was an unseen murder and the story of the ocular witnesses appears to lave been concocted. I, therefore, accept this appeal and acquit all the appellants of the charge framed against them. They may be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.
H.B.T./H‑98/L Appeal accepted.