MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 2 others vs THE STATE

1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioners Muhammad Ramzan and Pehalwan both sons of Muhammad Din were tried alongwith their father Muhammad Din son of Allah Ditta for committing murder of one Muhammad Nawaz and launching murderous assault on Muhammad Ashiq P.W.7 and Mst. Sheran Bibi P.W.B. After recording evidence in the case, the trial Court found Pehalwan son of Muhammad Din and Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Din guilty of the offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. And they were, accordingly, convicted under that section and awarded life imprisonment and (In to of Rs,10,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For 6 months. Petitioner Muhammad Ramzan was further found guilty under section 307, P.P.C. And was awarded 5 years' R.I. Under that section. Muhammad Din was, however, not found guilty under section 302, P.P.C. And therefore, he was acquitted in the case. He was, however, convicted under section 323, P.P.C. And awarded two years' simple imprisonment. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to both Muhammad Ramzan and Pehalwan. On appeal the learned Judge in Chamber of Lahore High Court refused to interfere with the conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioners by the trial Court and accordingly, their appeal was dismissed. However, the sentence awarded to Muhammad Din under section 323, P.P.C. Was reduced to one year simple imprisonment and he was also allowed benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

2. ' The petitioners are now seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court and it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Courts below failed to consider that the motive alleged against the petitioners could not be established and the recovery in the case was of no consequences and as such their conviction and sentences should be set aside. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the eye-witnesses in the case were highly interested and the doctor having stated in evidence that injury No,1 which was attributed to Pehalwan son of Muhammad Din, having caused the death of Muhammad Nawaz, at least Muhammad Ramzan could not be convicted of the offence under section 302, P.P.C. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at length, we are of the view that no case for interference with the order of High Court is made out.

3. No doubt the two witnesses produced in the case were related to the deceased but they were also equally related to the petitioners. Muhammad Ashiq P.W.7 is the real maternal nephew of accused Muhammad Din while Mst. Sheran Bibi is the daughter of sister of Muhammad Din. Both the witnesses were injured during the incident and, therefore, their presence at the spot could not be doubted. The defence failed to prove enmity between prosecution witnesses and the accused persons who are their closed relatives also. The learned Judge in Chamber fully discussed the motive part, of the prosecution case and believed it. The learned counsel is unable to point out any infirmity in the reasoning of the High Court while accepting the motive in the case. It is very vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that according to doctor' s evidence the death of the deceased was attributed to injury No,1 which was attributed to only one of the accused and therefore conviction of both the accused persons under section 302/34, P.P.C.

4. Was not sustainable under the law. It is true that the prosecution witnesses did not allege particular injuries to any particular accused in the case but it is quite clear from the prosecution evidence that both the accused persons in the case namely, Muhammad Ramzan and Pehalwan simultaneously fired on the deceased which hit the deceased. Since the prosecution witnesses did not attribute specific injuries to the accused persons in the case, the trial Court rightly awarded them lesser punishment prescribed for the offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that because no particular injury was attributed to the accused persons in the case, the case would not fall under section 302, P.P.C. Has not impressed us.

5. Mere omission on the part of prosecution to allege specific injury on the persons of the deceased to the accused persons in the case could not take out the case from the purview of section 302/34, P.P.C. The prosecution witnesses positively stated that both the accused persons namely, Muhammad Ramzan and Pehalwan, simultaneously fired on the deceased which hit him on his vital part resulting in his death. The doctor's evidence in the case also showed that the deceased suffered as many as 3 lacerated wounds on his head while one lacerated wound was found on the left cheek of the deceased. The preceding discussion would show that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the. Offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. Against the two accused in the case beyond reasonable doubt. No case for interference with the judgment of the High Court is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused.