LIAQAT ALI Versus THE STATE

KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J .--- This judgment will dispose of Murder Reference No.6 of 1997, Criminal Appeal No.21 /J of 1997, Criminal Appeal 127 of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No.15 of 1997. Criminal Appeal No. 21/J of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1997 have been filed by Liaqat Ali appellant, who was convicted under section 302, P:P.C. for the murder of his real brother Ghulam Abbas and was sentenced to undergo death sentence by the learned Sessions Judge. Bahawalnagar, vide his judgment, dated 18-2-1997. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, or in default thereof 6 months' R.I. According to the judgment, one Lal Khan was also tried with him but he was acquitted by the learned trial Court. Against his acquittal Mst. Mumtaz Begum, complainant has filed a Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1997. In jail appeal Ch. Muhammad Riaz, Advocate is representing the appellant while in Appeal No. 15 of 1997, Mr. M. Tayyib Wattoo, Advocate, is representing the appellant. Both these appeals arise out of same judgment.

2. The occurrence in this case took place on 1-8-1994 at 9-15 p.m. within the area of Chak No.125-6/R, 6-1/2 k.m away from the Police Station Faqirwali, Bahawalnagar, near the house of Samand Khan, father of the appellant and the matter was reported to the police at police station vide memo Exh.P.C. by Mst. Mumtaz Begum, complainant on the same night at 10-30 p.m.

3. The brief facts, as narrated by the complainant through F.I.R. Exh.P.C. are that she was married to Ghulam Abbas deceased 13/14 years ago. Ghulam Abbas deceased had two other brothers namely Haji Allah Ditta and Liaqat Ali, appellant. About 1-1/2 months prior to the present occurrence a case of abduction for murder was registered against Liaqat Ali, appellant and his acquitted co-accused Lal Khan, in Police Station Fort Abbas. Liaqat Ali appellant and Lal Khan (acquitted accused) were sure that this case was got registered by Ghulam Abbas, deceased and for this reason many a time altercation took place between Liaqat Ali appellant and Ghulam Abbas (acquitted accused). 20/25 days prior to the present occurrence Haji Samand Khan, father of the appellant and Ghulam Abbas deceased received an injury after a fall. On the day of occurrence, Ghulam Abbas deceased alongwith his wife Mst. Mumtaz Begum came to Haroonabad in Chak No.125/6-R in order to see Haji Samand Khan. Muhammad Ashraf son of Muhammad Khan. Khalid, Waheed sons of Muhammad Yar and Haji Allah Ditta son of Samand Khan were also present there. At 9-00 p.m. on the said day Liaqat Ali and Lal Khan accused also came there. An altercation also took place between Ghulam Abbas deceased and Liaqat Ali appellant there. Ghulam Abbas deceased, husband of Mst. Mumtaz Begum complainant while taking an oath of his children said that he knew nothing about the registration of the case against them but Liaqat Ali accused did not accept his version. He, thereafter, went into his room and after taking his rifle went outside from the house of his father. He was also followed by Lal Khan. After some time Ghulam Abbas deceased while boarding in his car went out of the house and proceeded towards Faqirwali in his car and when he reached at a distance of one acre in front of the Dera of Bashir Ahmad, Chairman, i.e. at about 9-15 p.m. Liaqat Ali, stopped his car. The complainant of the case Mst. Mumtaz Begum, P.W. alongwith Muhammad Ashraf, Waheed and Allah Ditta had also reached there. Liaqat Ali, in their view, fired 3/4 shots with his rifle at Ghulam Abbas deceased which hit him on his face and chest, who fell down on the seat of his car where he was sitting. Liaqat Ali appellant after causing injuries to the deceased ran away from the spot in his car. The complainant alongwith the abovesaid P. Ws. took the injured Ghulam Abbas in his own car to the Hospital Faqirwali but before reaching there Ghulam Abbas died.

4. The Investigating Officer in the instant case after registering the F.I.R. went to the Hospital, prepared the injury statement and inquest report and also recorded the statement of the witnesses. He also arrested the accused on 2-8-1994 at 3-30 a.m. Rifle P.4 alongwith magazine P.5 containing 11 live bullets P.5/1-I1 were taken into possession vide memo. P.D. The Investigating Officer also took into possession the Car No.LOM-234 in which Liaqat Ali was travelling, alongwith registration book, driving licence, arms licence, cash Rs.17,000 and key ring containing 4 keys vide memo. Exh.P.D. Liaqat Ali in fact was already detained at Police Post Chowk Bahu Chishtian because he had conveyed a message of wireless for the apprehension of Liaqat Ali appellant. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer came to the hospital. He also secured the Car bearing No.LOH-9205 and took into possession blood and one blood stained seat cover and made them into a sealed parcel. The Investigating Officer also secured one moller of the deceased which had come out due to bullet injury alongwith a lead bullet of .222 bore rifle and taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. E. Thereafter, he came to the spot, inspected the spot and took into possession 3 crime-empties of .222 rifle P.6/1-3. The same were made into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh.P.F. The rifle P.4 taken from the appellant was sealed into a parcel.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced 7 witnesses in all. Report of Chemical Examiner is Exh.P.M. and that of Serologist is Exh.P.L. and Fire-Arms Expert is Exh.P.N. Learned District Attorney had also given up Haji Allah Ditta, Waheed and Muhammad Ashraf P.Ws. as having been won- over on the application moved by the complainant. Falak Sher P.W. was also given up as unnecessary, thereafter, the statements of the appellant and his co accused Lal Khan was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Appellant had also appeared under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. to rebut the prosecution case. He also produced three D.Ws. namely, Muhammad Ashraf, his maternal-nephew, Allah Ditta, his real brother and Waheed Ahmad, his maternal-nephew who were eye witnesses in the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has read before us the prosecution evidence, statements of the appellant and other evidence as mentioned above and lie submits that Mst. Mumtaz Begum was not present at the spot. She was resident of Faisalabad and was brought from Faisalabad after the occurrence and thereafter, in connivance with the police a false case has been registered against the appellant. He also submits that there was no light at the spot and it was impossible for Mst. Mumtaz Begum to have witnessed the occurrence. He submits that in the site plan which was prepared by the Investigating Officer without scale which is Exh.P.K. that house has not been shown from where the deceased had come out. Even in that site plan none of the P.Ws. has been shown to be present at the spot. He further submits that there is no evidence or witness about motive. He submits that complainant is an interested witness. He also submits that in fact it was an un-witnessed occurrence and no independent witness has been produced. He submits that three eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Ashraf, Haji Allah Ditta and Waheed, who were named as eye-witnesses by the complainant had been produced by the appellant in his defence.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court. There is nobody to peruse the Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1997 on behalf of the complainant against the acquittal of Lai Khan.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence recorded by the trial Court. The occurrence in this case took place at 9-15 p.m. while the police station was at a distance of 6-1/2 k.m. from the place of occurrence. The matter was reported to the police within one hour and 15 minutes without any delay. The appellant is real brother of the deceased and Mst. Mumtaz Begum is wife of Ghulam Abbas deceased. She has got no enmity whatsoever against the appellant. There is no question of false implication in the instant case. It was natural for Mst. Mumtaz Begum to have accompanied her husband Ghulam Abbas deceased in order to know about the welfare of her father-in-law namely Samand Khan who had received an injury while falling on the ground. Three eye-witnesses who appeared as D.Ws. namely Haji Allah Ditta, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Waheed are near relatives of the appellant because Allah Ditta is real brother of the appellant. Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Waheed are maternal-nephews of the appellant. They were given up by the District Attorney on the application of Mst. Mumtaz Begum on the ground that they have been won-over by the appellant. Mst. Mumtaz Begum was married 12/13 years prior to the present occurrence with Ghulam Abbas deceased. She had minor children. There was no body to support them and she was alone to contest this case for the murder of her husband. D.Ws. must have thought that one of their brother Ghulam Abbas has been killed while the other is behind the bars for his murder and if we appear against Liaqat Ali appellant, he would also go to gallows so they refused to support the prosecution case although, they were named, in the F.I.R. and there was no option left with Mst. Mumtaz begum but to give them up as having been won-over. Court has to see the quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence. Mst. Mumtaz Begum is the star-witness of the prosecution. Her statement had come from an unimpeachable source. She is a credible witness in our opinion. There is no earthly reason to disbelieve her. F.I.R. was lodged promptly without any delay and the appellant was apprehended on the same night at 3-30 a.m. .222 rifle was recovered from him and three crime-empties collected from the spot matched with the rifle recovered from him. This is a very strong corroborative piece of evidence against the appellant. Motive has been mentioned by Mst. Mumtaz Begum in the F.I.R. and also before the trial Court on oath anti moreover the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. has admitted white replying the question No.3 that case was registered against him but he was acquitted in this case. We may also mention here that when the appellant appeared under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. in order to rebut the prosecution evidence on oath. He was cross-examined at length. It had come on record that appellant was a desperate person. He was involved in many criminal cases. This also shows the dare devilness on the part of the appellant that he even did not spare his real brother and killed him by causing 4/5 fire-arm injuries on the vital part of his body which proved fatal. There is no conflict even between ocular account and medical evidence. According to doctor Fayyaz Ahmad P.W.2. who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found 4/5 entry wounds on the person of the deceased and injury No.5 was an exit wound and all these were caused by fire-arm. An objection by the learned counsel for the defence was raised that there was no light at the place of occurrence nor any light was shown by the Investigating Officer while preparing site plan without scale. We may mention here that while cross-examining Mst. Mumtaz Begum, the learned defence counsel himself through her cross, examination has brought on record at second last page of the statement of said P.W. that:-- "the tube lights were fixed in front of the Dera of Bashir Ahmad Chairman. There were 3 tube lights fixed in the walls."

The Dera of Bashir Ahmad, Chairman is just in front of the place where the occurrence had taken place. In our view the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. Ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of weapon and matching of crime-empties with the said rifle recovered from the appellant and the motive furnished by Mst. Mumtaz Begum. There is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant. In this view of the matter the judgment of the learned trial Court is upheld and the death sentence awarded to the appellant is maintained. Murder Reference is replied in the affirmative and death sentence is confirmed. As far as appeal against acquittal of Lai Khan is concerned, it is dismissed because it has also got no merit as there is no evidence against Lai Khan to connect him with the commission of the murder of Ghulam Abbas deceased.

Death sentence awarded to Liaqat Ali is confirmed .

H.B.T./L-41 /L

Appeal dismissed.