Deedar Ali alias Dildar alias Raja Versus State
Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, J .--- Through this judgment, we aim to dispose of the captioned appeal brought before us pursuant to the judgment dated 30.04.2025 ( impugned judgment ) rendered by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I Nasirabad at Dera Murad Jamali ( Trial Court ), emanating from FIR bearing No.46 of 2022 (Ex.P/7-A) registered with Police Station Manjhoo Shori, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 302 (b) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ( P.P.C ) to suffer R.I for life as Taz ir and to pay compensation in terms of section 544-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ( Cr.P.C ) in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Five hundred thousand) to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default thereof, to suffer six (06) months S.I with the premium of section 382-B of Cr.P.C.
2. Condensed, but relevant facts for disposal of the case are that complainant Murad Ali (PW-1) got lodged the FIR ibid on the basis of his application (Ex.P/1-A), averring therein that on 23.06.2022 at about 06:15 pm on the request of appellant Deedar alias Dildar for help in cultivation of rice crops, he along with his brother Muhammad Murad (deceased) and cousin Khadim Hussain (PW-3) went to his Otaak (guest room), where the appellant, his brothers i.e., Shahdad and Kareem armed with TT pistols raised tumult and cautioned his brother Muhammad Murad that he is a Siakaar with his niece Hamida Bibi, and made firing upon his deceased brother, who sustained injuries and succumbed on the spot, whereafter the accused persons fled away.
3. After registration of FIR (Ex.P/7-A), Elahi Bakhsh S.I ( IO ) (PW-7) was entrusted with the investigation, who went to the spot, prepared site plan (Ex.P/7-B), secured bloodstained earth and ten (10) empty shells of TT pistol vide recovery memos (Ex.P/4-B) and (Ex.P/4-C) respectively. He also took into possession blood stained clothes of deceased vide recovery memo (Ex.P/5-A), prepared inquest report (Ex.P/7-C) and recorded statement of witnesses under section 161 of Cr.P.C.
On 03.11.2023, the appellant was arrested, who on 16.11.2023 during investigation made disclosure (Ex.P/6-A) and made pointation of the place of incident (Ex.P/6-B). Elahi Bakhsh S.I ( IO ) (PW-7) produced challans (Ex.P/7-D), (Ex.P/7-E) and (Ex.P/7-F) and lastly produced FSL report (Ex.P/7-G)
4. After usual investigation, the appellant was arrested and put on trial, whereas co-accused Shadad alias Shahzada and Karim Bakhsh remained away from the course of justice, thus they were declared proclaimed offenders.
On commencement of trial, the appellant denied the indictment, whereafter the prosecution in order to drive home the charge produced as many as seven (7) witnesses and at the end of the prosecution side, he was examined under section 342 of Cr.P.C. He neither opted to record his statement on oath nor produced any defence, henceforth on conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant in the terms mentioned in para supra.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the indictment against the appellant and that the testimony of eye-witness (PW-1) and (PW-3) is untrustworthy and unreliable because there are various contradictions in their statements. Added further that neither recovery of crime weapon has been effected from the appellant nor any FSL report regarding the empties have been procured, which aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Trial Court in its true perspective, making the impugned judgment a nullity in the eyes of law, which requires interference by this Court, thus, requested for acquittal of the appellant in consequence of acceptance of instant appeal. He relied upon the judgments reported as 2017 SCMR 596, 2018 SCMR 506, 2024 SCMR 1507 and 2025 SCMR 662.
Conversely, learned APG and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently rebutted the assertions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and maintained that the prosecution has proved the case to the hilt against the appellant. Argued further that the prosecution has successfully proved the case by procuring positive FSL human blood report and that the appellant has admitted the guilt of his crime, while recording disclosure, which establishes the indictment through unbroken chain of events. They urged that the Trial Court has found the appellant guilty on the basis of proper appraisal of the evidence, which does not call for interference, thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard. Record gone through with the able assistance of learned counsel for the adversarial parties.
7. The entire edifice of the prosecution case rests upon the ocular account of complainant Murad Ali (PW-1), eye-witness Khadim Hussain (PW-3) coupled with medical evidence of Dr. Soomar Khan, disclosure (Ex.P/6-A), recovery of bloodstained clothes and ten (10) empty shells of TT pistols (Ex.P/4-B) and (Ex.P/4-C) and lastly Forensic Science Laboratory Crime Branch, Quetta report (Ex.P/7-G).
8. The unnatural death of deceased Muhammad Murad caused by firearm has been not disputed. However, in order to substantiate the unnatural death of deceased, the prosecution produced Dr. Soomar Khan, (PW-2), who examined the deceased on 23.06.2022 at 09:15 pm and issued Medico Legal Certificate ( MLC ) (Ex.P/2- A), wherein he observed the following injuries;
Dead body brought to RHCM/Shori for postmortem examination referred from police station Manjho Shori; Injuries: i. W. Entry, A fire arm injury on right luborarea of abdomen, cm in size-with no exist wound found. ii. W. Entry, A firearm injury on right lateral side of upper arm with exit wound seen on right shoulder. iii. W, entry, Two firearm injuries on left lateral side of chest com in size-one exit wound seen on midline of abdomen-but other exit wound not seen, iv. W, Entry, A firearm injury on left side chest near clavicle bone cm in size-with exit would seen on left shoulder, v. W. Entry, A firearm on injury on left lateral side of the thigh cm in size with exit would seen on M/ surface of left thigh.
9. Dr. Soomar Khan, (PW-2) was cross-examined at length, but the defence failed to shatter his testimony, thus his testimony went unshaken, henceforth, the prosecution has successfully proved the unnatural death of deceased Muhammad Murad caused by firearm. Besides above, the prosecution has procured a positive FSL, Quetta report (Ex.P/7-G) regarding human blood detected on the recovered blood stained earth and clothes.
10. The occurrence took place in a broad daylight at Goth Behram Khan on 23.06.2022 at 06:15 pm, while complainant Murad Ali (PW-1) along with his cousin Khadim Hussain (PW-3) and his deceased brother Muhammad Murad were present at the Otaak of accused Deedar. It is case of the complainant Murad Ali (PW-1) that on the eventful eve the appellant requested to help him in the cultivation of corps, whereupon he along with his deceased brother Muhammad Murad and cousin Khadim Hussain (PW-3) went to his guest room at 6:15 pm, where appellant, his brothers Shahdad alias Shahzada and Kareem Bakhsh were already present armed with TT pistols, whereupon appellant Deedar raised commotion and cautioned his deceased brother Muhammad Murad that he is a Siakaar with his niece Hamida Bibi daughter of Shahdad, whereafter all of them made indiscriminate firing upon his deceased brother and also advanced threats to them for any move, nonetheless, his deceased brother succumbed to the injuries and the appellant along with his brothers made their escape good, however, he went to the police station for lodging the report, whereas left behind his cousin Khadim Hussain (PW-3) for protection of dead body. Despite lengthy cross-examination, complainant Murad Ali (PW-1) remained firm and consistent to his examination-in-chief, and consequently his statement went unshaken, which otherwise sounds natural, confidence inspiring and truthful.
11. The next foremost important piece of evidence, whereupon the prosecution relies upon is the statement of eye-witness Khadim Hussain (PW-3), who testified in line with the statement of complainant Murad Ali (PW-1) and reiterated what complainant had stated. He was cross-examined at length, but the defence failed to shatter his testimony as he remained firm and consistent to his examination in chief, thus his testimony could not be shattered. The presence of the above eye-witnesses have been found by the Trial Court and this Court to be natural, who have no reason to falsely implicate the appellant. The defence has failed to bring anything on record to establish false implication or substitution of the real culprits with the appellant, more particularly, when the medical evidence corroborates the ocular account, nature, time and locale of injuries sustained by deceased Muhammad Murad. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the case of Amanullah v. The State (2023 SCMR 723).
12. In the instant case, although no recovery of crime weapon has been affected from the appellant, but it does not automatically create a doubt in the prosecution s case, when the prosecution has otherwise proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt with convincingly strong evidence. Moreso, recovery of the crime weapon is not a mandatory requirement to prove a criminal charge as it is generally treated as a corroborative evidence and not substantive proof of guilt by itself. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of Mukhtar Ahmed v. The State (2004 SCMR 220) observed that no recovery of the crime weapon was made, but non-recovery of the weapon was held not to be fatal to the prosecution case, as the ocular account given by witnesses was found to be sufficient to bring home guilt of the accused.
13. As far as pointation of place of occurrence in consequence of disclosure of appellant is concerned, it is unworthy of reliance as the place of occurrence was already known to the police officials and site plan (Ex.P/7-B) was prepared far back, while visiting the crime scene, thus no reliance can be placed on such piece of evidence.
14. That apart, the FIR has been lodged promptly by the complainant, which enhances his credibility, the ocular account of witnesses and supports the prosecution s case, even in circumstances where the weapon of the offence has not been recovered, but it does not diminish the evidentiary value of a trustworthy, promptly lodged FIR, particularly when other strong evidence establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
15. As for the argument of learned counsel for the appellant regarding contradictions in the statement of eye-witnesses is concerned, it is well settled that minor contradictions and inconsistencies do not affect the case of the prosecution, which do creep in evidence with the passage of time and the same can be ignored, especially when sufficient corroboratory material is available on record. In this regard, we are guided with principle laid down by the apex court in the cases of Zakir Khan v. The State (1995 SCMR 1793), and Zain Ali v. The State (2023 SCMR 1669).
16. Learned counsel for the appellant stressed that complainant Murad Ali (PW-1) is the brother of deceased and Khadim Hussain (PW-3) is his cousin, thus their statements cannot be relied upon for being inter se related to the deceased. Undeniably, both of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence are related to the deceased, but merely for such reason they cannot be termed as interested witnesses . The term related is not equivalent to interested . A witness may be called interested only when, he or she derives some benefit in seeing an accused person punished on ulterior motives. A witness, who is a natural and is the only possible eye-witness in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be interested . In the present case, both the eye-witness i.e., complainant Murad Ali (PW-1) and Khadim Hussain (PW-3) have not only proved their presence, but their testimonies are consistent and trustworthy. They have cogently described the manner of commission of the crime in detail, thus, we are of the considered view that the testimonies of eye-witnesses, who are related to the deceased carries more evidentiary value. SEE; [ Aqil v. The State (2023 SCMR 831 and Khadim Hussain v. The State (PLD 2010 SC 669)].
17. Epitome of the above discussion is that the ocular account of complainant Murad Ali (PW-1), eye-witness Khadim Hussain (PW-03) is trustworthy and worth reliance, which has been confirmed by the medical evidence of Dr. Soomar Khan (PW-2), thus, we hold that the prosecution has proved the indictment to the hilt without any glimpse of doubt.
18. After critical analysis of the evidence on record discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the indictment against the appellant, which has rightly been appreciated with reasons by the Trial Court, thus the impugned judgment does not warrant interference by this Court.
19. Coming to the question of quantum of sentence, it may be observed that admittedly it has not come on record as to who caused the fatal injury to deceased Muhammad Murad amongst the nominated culprits, as such in the above circumstances, where seat of injuries caused by firing are unknown, the case becomes one of mitigating circumstances. Moreso, the prosecution beside failing to establish the motive of Siakaari through independent and corroborative evidence also remained unsuccessful to recover the crime weapon, which further creates room for mitigating circumstances in order to extend leniency.
The Trial Court has sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment rather than capital punishment, which seems plausible, whilst considering the mitigating circumstances. That apart, the complainant party has not filed any revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant, which indicates their satisfaction regarding sentence awarded to the appellant.
20. The case laws referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable, having no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, therefore are of no help to the appellant.
21. Corollary, the appeal fails for being shorn of merits, henceforth dismissed and in consequence thereof, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 30.04.2025 is hereby maintained.
JK/22/Bal. Appeal dismissed.