SHAMEERA Versus STATE
This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 24-9-1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Bahawalnagar, whereby appellants Shameera and Muhammad Amen were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life each and a fme of Rs.10,000 each in default whereof to suffer further R.I. for 2 years each. The fine, if realized was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The appellants were convicted and sentenced for the murder of Muhammad Shafi deceased and Mst. Ajjan Mai deceased respectively. The co-accused Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Hanif, Manzoor Ahmad, Zia Ahmad and Haitam were acquitted. The connected criminal revision shall also be disposed of together.
2. Briefly the prosecution is that P.W.7 Noor Ahmad on 1-9-1987 lodged F.I.R. Exh.P.K. at Police Station Sadar Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar at 7-00 a.m. which was recorded by P.W.9 Ghulam Rasool, S.H.O. to the effect that he was a cultivator and on the previous night he along with his deceased father and mother was sleeping as usual to the courtyard of the house, whereas P.W.6 Riaz Ahmad and Mumtaz P.W. (given up) sons of Rehmoo were also sleeping nearby. At about 10/11-00 p.m. on the barking of the dogs, P.W.7 Noor Ahmad and Mumtaz Ahmad P.W. (given up) woke up and witnessed that appellant Shameera armed with Kassi was standing on the head side of Muhammad Shaft deceased, whereas Muhammad Hanif, Muhammad Sharif and Zia Ahmad alias Bagga (acquitted co-accused) had caught hold of deceased Muhammad Shaft from his arms and feet. Shameera appellant inflicted Kassi blow on the neck of Muhammad Shaft deceased, Muhammad Amin appellant in the same manner also inflicted Kassi blow on the neck of Mst. Ajjan deceased, whereas Haitam, Manzoor Ahmad (acquitted co accused) had caught hold of the arms and feet of Mst. Ajjan deceased. The P.Ws. raised hue and cry to apprehend the accused, but they were threatened that if they would come near, they would not be spared. The appellants along with the acquitted co-accused succeeded in running away. The P.Ws. witnessed that Muhammad Shafi succumbed to his injuries immediately, whereas Mst. Ajjan deceased was found smeared in blood and succumbed to her injuries after some time. The motive was that there wat some dispute between his father Muhammad Shaft deceased and Muhammad Hanif etc. on the partition of land. Muhammad Shaft deceased had filed an appeal in the Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore, due to which Muhammad Hanif etc. had a grievance and to usurp the land, the father and mother of the complainant had been murdered after mutual consultation. Leaving behind P.W.6 Riaz Ahmad, Mumtaz Ahmad P.W. (given up) and other residents of the village to guard the dead bodies, P.W.7 Noor Ahmad complainant reached the police station and lodged F.I.R. Exh.P.K. The appellants alongwith the acquitted co-accused were challaned and sent up for trial. Charges under three counts i.e. under sections 148, 302/149 and 302/149, P.P.C. were framed against them, to which they denied and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examination 9 P.Ws. in all to substantiate its case. The prosecution case rests upon motive, ocular testimony, medical evidence and recoveries, which shall be dealt with one by one vis-a-vis the defence version to arrive at a just and definite conclusion.
4. P.W.6 Riaz Ahmad has stated motive behind the occurrence that Muhammad Shaft deceased had filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, against Muhammad Kabir, Sajwara father of appellant Muhammad Amin, Hussain, Sharif, Hanif and some others. Hussain was father of Bagga (acquitted co-accused) and maternal-uncle of Shameera appellant. Manzoor and Haitam (acquitted co-accused) were sons of Kabir. P.W.7 Noor Ahmad complainant narrated the motive as mentioned by him in the F.I.R. Exh.P.K. to the effect that his father deceased Muhammad Shaft had a partition dispute about the land and the deceased had filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore against Muhammad Hanif etc. for which they had grievance. P.Ws.6 and 7 have corroborated each other on the point of motive behind the present occurrence which has been proved on record, as the defence has failed to bring anything consistent or contradictory to the motive furnished on record by the testimony of P.W.6 and P.W 7
'The ocular testimony has been furnished "onr`ecord by the statement of P W.6 Riaz Ahad who stated that on the night of occurrence at about 11-00 p.m. he alongwith Mumtaz Ahmad P.W. (given up), P.W.7 Noor Ahmad complainant, deceased Mst. Ajjan Mai and deceased Muhammad Shaft were sleeping in the courtyard of Muhammad Shaft deceased, they heard the barking of a dog. They got up and witnessed the appellant Shameera having a Kasst to his hand and standing towards head side of the cot of Muhammad Shaft deceased, Sharif, Hanif and Bagga (acquitted co-accused) had caught hold of the arms and legs of Muhammad Shaft deceased and appellant Shameera inflicted Kassi blow on the neck of Muhammad Shaft deceased. Manzoor and Haitam (acquitted co-accused) caught hold of the arms and legs of Mst. Ajjan Mai deceased whereas Muhammad Amin appellant gave Kassi blow on her neck. The P.Ws. rushed towards the deceased persons, but the appellants and the acquitted co-accused threatened them with dire consequences and fled away. Muhammad Shaft deceased succumbed to his injuries instantaneously, whereas Mst. Ajjan Mai deceased succumbed to her injuries after some moments. P.W.7 Noor Ahmad complainant narrated the facts mentioned by him in the F.I.R. Exh.P.K. and had stated that Shameera appellant had inflicted one Kassi blow on the neck of Muhammad Shaft deceased, whereas appellant Muhammad Amin had given one Kassi blow on the neck of Mst. Ajjan Mai deceased. P.Ws.6 and 7 have made consistent statements. They had no motive whatsoever to falsely involve the appellants in the present case. The statements made by them cannot be brushed aside or thrown away on account of their close relationship with the deceased i.e. P.W.7 is son of the deceased Muhammad Shaft and Mst. Ajjan, whereas P.W.6 is sister's son of deceased Muhammad Shafi. The appellants were previously known to the eye-witnesses as being closely related and residents of the same village.
6. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no electricity at the- place of occurrence and it was not possible for the P.Ws. to see and identify the assailants. It was 5th of lunar night. The appellants and the P.Ws. are closely related and residents of the same village. The P.Ws. were present in the courtyard where the occurrence took place and were awakened by the barking of dog and had witnessed the appellants infected one Kassi blow each on the deceased persons. The question of mistaken identity does not arise in the circumstances.
7. P.W.1 Dr. Muhammad Ashraf on 1-9-1987 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Ajjan Mai and found an incised wound in front of neck 8 c.m. x 4 c.m. In his opinion the death was occurred due to haemorrhage and shock by the only injury present on the neck which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death was instantaneous and time between death and post-mortem was 16 hours. The injury was ante-mortem in nature. The post-mortem report is Exh.PA.
On the same day P W. also conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Shafi and found an incised wound on right side of neck, mandible cut 14 c.m. x 6 c.m. In the opinion of the doctor the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage by injury on neck, by cutting all the big vessels and trachea. The injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and was ante-mortem in nature. The death was instantaneous. The time between death and post-mortem was 16-1/2 hours. The post-mortem report is Exh.P.B. The medical evidence furnished on record by the statement of P.W.1 is in consonance with the ocular testimony brought on record by the statements of P.Ws.6 and 7.
8. The recovery aspect has been furnished on record by the statements of Noor Ahmad (P.W.7) and Ghulam Rasool (P.W.9). The appellants were arrested by P.W.9 on 9-9-1987. P.W.7 joined the investigation and in his presence appellant Shameera while in police custody led to the recovery of Kassi blood-stained P.9 from the residential house which was secured by P.W.9 vide memo. Exh.P.L. attested by P.W.7 and P.W. Muhammad Shafi (given up). At the same time Shameera appellant also led to the recovery of blood-stained Safa P.10 secured by P.W.9 vide memo. Exh.P.N. Muhammad Amin appellant while in custody also led to the recovery of blood-stained Kassi P.11 from his residential house which was made into a sealed parcel and taken into possession by P.W.9 vide memo. Exh.P.M. He also led to the recovery of blood-stained Lacha P.12 from his house, the same was made into a sealed parcel and taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.O. These memos were attested by P.W.7 and Muhammad Shafi P.W. (given up). P.9 and P.12 were made in separate sealed parcels. P.W.7 Noor Ahmed is son of the deceased persons, but as already held that he had no motive to falsely involve the appellants in the present case and had no animus whatsoever against them. The statement made by P.W.7 to the factum of recovery corroborated by the statement of Investigating Officer P.W.9 is confidence inspiring. Moreover the reports of the Chemical Examiner and that of the Serologist Exhs.P.U. and P.V., respectively are positive. The factum of recovery has been proved on record.
9. The appellants when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence against them and also denied the recoveries of incriminating articles and claimed that they had been falsely involved in the present case. In answer to the question "why this case and why the P.Ws. deposed against you" appellant Shameera replied:--
"Due to enmity and suspicion. Muhammad Shafi deceased had other enemies. The P.Ws. did not witness the occurrence. Trackers were called by the police in the morning and at a very late stage and after getting the result of post-mortem, the F.I.R. was prepared in which a false story was introduced and Noor Ahmad, Mumtaz and Riaz were cited as fake eye-witnesses."
Appellant Muhammad Amin in answer to such a question stated to the same effect. The only defence witness Ghulam Farid (D.W.1) stated that it was an unseen occurrence and he was present at the spot when the police arrived and the S.H.O. made inquiries about the actual culprits. The appellants had not opted to make statements on oath.
10. I have heard full length arguments from both sides. Except minor discrepancies here and there, the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case. The motive, ocular account, medical evidence and the recoveries are in consonance with each other. The appellants have failed to controvert or refute I anything. The prosecution case is proved to the hilt.
11. Pursuant to the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. Hence the appeal filed by them fails and is dismissed. The connected Criminal Revision No.84 of 1989/BWP had also no merit and is dismissed.
N.H.Q./S-297/L Appeal dismissed.