MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus STATE
Shafaqaat Ali alias Babu son of Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani were sent up for trial by Police Station Baghbanpura, Gujranwala, vide F.I.R. No.214, dated 29-6-1988, for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. Sessions Judge, Gujranwala vide judgment, dated 12-11-1989 gave the benefit of doubt to Muhammad Ramzan and acquitted him. Shafaqaat Ali was, however, found guilty for .an offence under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.20,000, or in default two years' R.I. It was further directed that the fine, if recovered, out of it Rs.15,000 shall be given to the legal heirs of deceased Amanat Ali as compensation under section 544, Cr.P.C. He was also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The convict has appealed. Complainant Muhammad Bashir has filed a revision, bearing Criminal Revision No.90 of 1990 for enhancement of sentence of Shafaqaat Ali, and against the acquittal of Muhammad Ramzan.
2. The prosecution story in brief, as disclosed in F.I.R. Exh.P.B. recorded on the statement of Muhammad Bashir, P.W., was to the effect that on 29-6-1988 at about 2 p.m., Shafaqaat Ali gave slaps to Muhammad Ismail, father-in-law of Mst. Irshad Bibi, sister of said Shafaqaat Ali. He had also threatened that if his sister Mst. Irshad Bibi was not brought to her house, he would not let Mst. Sakina Bibi, daughter of said Ismail, live with her husband Amanat Ali. First informant was apprised of the situation, whereupon first informant with Amanat Ali, his son Muhammad Riaz and Liaqat Ali proceeded towards Police Station Baghbanpura for reporting the matter. At about 4-30 in the evening when they reached near the shop of Muhammad Ramzan who raised a Lalkara that Amanat Ali was coming, he should be fired at, whereupon Shafaqaat Ali fired two shots with his pistol hitting Amanat Ali on the chest, who fell down. The assailants managed to escape. Injured Amanat Ali died while being transported to Hospital. ,y
F.I.R. Exh.P.B. was-lodged by Muhammad Bashir, P.W.4, which was recorded by Abdul Aziz, Inspector/S.H.O. P.W.10, on 29-6-1988 at about 5-30 p.m. with regard to an occurrence which took place the same day at 4-30 p.m. at Mohallah Rehmat Pura, Naushehra Road, 1-1/4 miles from the police station.
Abdul Aziz, S.I., P.W.10, after recording the F.I.R. Exh.P.B., went to the hospital and prepared inquest report Exh.P.G., and injury statement Exh.P.H. of the deceased. He took the last-worn clothes of the deceased into possession vide memo. Exh.PA. Thereafter he went to the spot and prepared site plan Exh.P.I. On 8-7-1988, Shafaqaat accused, while in custody got recovered pistol from his house, which was secured vide memo. Exh.P.E., duly attested by the witnesses. He got prepared site plan Exh.P.F. and Exh.P.F./1 from Draftsman and gave his notes in red ink thereunder. At the conclusion of investigation he challaned the-accused.
3. P.W.5 Dr. Mian Habib Alam, Medical Officer, U.H.Q. Hospital, Gujranwala, on 30-6-1988, conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Amanat Ali, aged 23 years, and found the following two injuries:--
(1) Injury .7 c.m. x .7 c.m. oval in shape going deep with inverted margin and the surrounding small area of burnt skin. That wound was in middle of the sternal region in front of the chest. It was 4 c.m. from the suprasternal notch.
(2) .8 c.m. x .8 c.m. going deep with inverted margin alongwith surrounding burnt skin, and blackened: The wound was 1.5 c.m. below the injury No.l in middle portion of the chest bone.
In his opinion the injuries were ante-mortem and cause of death was haemorrhage and shock which was result of these injuries.
4. The prosecution in support of its case produced ten witnesses in all. P.W.1 Ghulam Murtaza, Constable after post-mortem examination produced last-worn blood-stained clothes of the deceased before the Investigating Officer on 30-6-1988. P.W.2 Ghulam Hussain, Constable took blood-stained earth to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore. P.W3 Nazir Hussain, A.S.I./Moharrir, Police Station Baghbanpura, Gujranwala kept in safe, custody the blood-stained earth. Thereafter he gave the same to Ghulam Hussain, Constable for onward transmission` to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore. Ocular account was furnished by P.W.4 Muhammad Bashir and P.W.6 Liaqat Ali. Post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Mian Habib Alam, P.W.5. Muhammad Latif, P.W.8 had witnessed the recovery of pistol P.4 at the instance of the appellant, and signed the recovery memo. P.W.9 Arif Hussain Ayyaz, Draftsman prepared the site plan Exhs.P.F. and P.F./1 on the direction of the police. The case was investigated by Abdul Aziz, S.I., P.W.10. At the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question, he replied that on the fateful day at about 4 p.m., Amanat, deceased, with Riaz, P.W. not produced, and two others, whom he did not know, came to his house and asked him to send his 'sister with them. He refused on the ground that his sister's father-in-law or her husband should come with them, whereupon Amanat deceased took out a pistol from his pocket. The accused grappled with him and twisted his hand. During this scuffle the pistol went off and the bullet hit the chest of said Amanat, who on receiving the injury ran towards the road and fell down and died. He also produced defence evidence in support of his version. Mst. Irshad Bibi, D.W.1, real sister of the appellant, appeared and stated that she was married 10/11 years earlier. Her husband Muhammad Jamil had turned out after shaving her head with the help of Amanat deceased. She came back and started living with her brother Shafaqaat as their father was not alive. On the fateful day Amanat Ali with two others came to her house and asked her brother to send the witness with them. On his refusal, Amanat Ali took out a pistol, whereupon her brother caught hold of Amanat and during this scuffle the pistol went off. Thereafter, she did not know what happened because the door was closed. The appellant also appeared in his defence on oath and pleaded innocence. He stated that when he was grappling with Amanat Ali, said Amanat Ali fell down on the ground with the pistol which went off resulting in injuries.
5. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was not proved at all, and the prosecution had not been able to establish its case beyond doubt as the statements of the witnesses were discrepant. Asserted that the motive as alleged was neither proved nor the appellant was connected with it. Asserted that the defence version, if kept is juxtaposition with the prosecution case, it inspires more confidence and should be relied upon. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as by the learned counsel for the complainant. According to them, it was a broad daylight occurrence and the chances of mistaken identity could safely be ruled out. There was no background of any enmity between the witnesses who could safely be relied upon.
6. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The prosecution has tried to establish its case from the ocular account and sought corroboration from the medical evidence. As far as the ocular account is concerned, it has been furnished by Muhammad Bashir and Liaqat Ali, P.Ws.4 and 6, respectively. Both the witnesses have given a detailed account of .the occurrence. They were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be brought on the record to suggest that there was any motive on the part of either of the witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant. I have noticed that Liaqat Ali, P.W.6 is not related to either side, yet he has given the evidence in the most convincing manner. He has given a plausible explanation with regard to his presence at the spot, which inspires confidence. According to him, he was accompanying the first informant to police station for lodging the report as he was an educated man and the complainant side had requested him. Medical evidence furnishes full corroboration to the ocular account. The prosecution witnesses are unanimous that the deceased was fired at twice and both the shots hit him. The doctor, who had performed the post-mortem examination, confirmed the assertion as he found two fire-arm injuries on the deceased.
As far as the defence version is concerned, I have given my anxious consideration to it, but I am not impressed with it. The defence version is obviously an afterthought, and it cannot be relied upon. Even otherwise, it is in conflict with the medical evidence. According to the appellant, the pistol accidentally went off while they were grappling, and the bullet hit Amanat Ali, deceased. According to this statement, only one shot was fired, yet there are two fire-arm injuries. Secondly, the defence version is that the deceased was hit with a bullet in front of the house of the appellant and thereafter he ran towards the road and fell down on the ground after covering some distance. In such circumstances, there should have been a trail of blood, which was neither noticed by the Investigating Officer nor pointed out by any of the witnesses. I have also noticed that the appellant has given inconsistent stories. In his statement without oath he stated that while grappling the pistol went off hitting the deceased. Whereas in his statement on oath he stated that the deceased fell down on the ground and thereafter the pistol went off.
For what has been discussed above, the defence version cannot be accepted. The prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal fails, which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody for serving the remaining period of his sentence.
As far as the Criminal Revision filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence of the appellant and against the acquittal of Muhammad Ramzan is concerned, I have noticed that the trial Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt to Muhammad Ramzan, co-accused of the appellant, and acquitted him because no overt act was ascribed to him, except for raising a Lalkara, which was neither required nor was necessary in the circumstances of the case. The reasons for awarding lesser imprisonment to the appellant are legal and no exception to them can be taken- Therefore, the revision fails, which is also dismissed.
N.H.Q./S-428/L ?????????
Appeal dismissed.