1. ' Zikrayya son of Muhammad Ishaq after having been triedalongwith Nasar Iqbal and Yasar Arfat by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sargodha in case F.I.R. No.98, dated 27-5-1998 under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at P.S. Kirana, Sargodha, for murder of Mst. Ghazala Bibi and was convicted vide impugned judgment dated 20-12-2002 under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was however, extended in his favour.
2. ' The brief facts of the case as narrated in para.2 of the impugned judgment are that Muhammad Nawaz, P.W.10 got recorded F.I.R. Exh.P.L. In the police station alleging therein that on 27-5-1998 Khurram Shahzad son of Muzaffar Hussain went to play football behind the hills where Yasar Arfat, Zafar Iqbal, Shahbaz, etc. Gave him slaps and in retaliation he also thrashed them, that Ahmad son of Ali Sher who was present there and' separated them, that he alongwith Ali Sher, Rustam Khan, Khurram Shahzad and his daughter Mst. Ghazala were present in the house; that at about 6:15 p.m.
3. Zafar Iqbal accused armed with 7MM rifle, Nasar Iqbal accused armed with 7MM rifle, Ehsanullah accused armed with .30 bore pistol, Yasar Arfat accused armed with 7MM rifle, Umer Farooq armed with 7MM rifle, Shahbaz accused armed with .12 bore gun, Zikrayya accused armed with 7MM, Waqar Akmal armed with .12 bore gun, Muhammad Afzal accused armed with double barrel gun started straight firing towards the house of the complainant by going on the roof top of house of Mushtaq deceased and threatened that they will teach a lesson to Khurram Shahzad for the disgrace. The.First shots hit the verandah of the house of complainant. The complainant and his comrades hide themselves, Zikrayya accused came in the Haveli of Mushtaq while firing and fired shots by standing alongwith wall. The fire-shot hit Mst. Ghazala Bibi who was present in the verandah in her house whereby she fell down. Rustam Khan also fired shots in exchange. The accused fled away from the spot. Mst. Ghazala Bibi was taken to the hospital in an unconscious state who succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. All the accused have fired shots with their common intention of them all by forming an unlawful assembly and killed Mst. Ghazala Bibi.
4. ' The motive alleged for the occurrence was political rivalry between the parties. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by Muhammad Nawaz, P.W.10 and Ali Sher P.W.18.
5. ' The case was investigated by Muhammad Azam, S.I., P.W.11 who after registration of the formal F.I.R.
6. Arrived at the spot and took into possession blood-stained earth from the place where Mst.
7. Ghazala was murdered through memo. Exh.P.M. And went to the Civil Hospital, Sargodha and took the dead body of Mst. Ghazala into possession; prepared her injury statement through memo.
8. Exh.P.C. And inquestreport Exh.P.D. And dispatched the dead body for post-mortem examination.
9. On 28-5-1998 last worn clothes of the deceased were produced before him which were taken into possession through memo. Exh.P.A. He searched for the accused but could not tra.e him. Therefore, the investigation was entrusted to Zia Aslam, S.I. P.W.
13. Accused Zafar Iqbal, Ehsanullah, Umar Farooq, Shahbaz, Waqar A' nal and Muhammad Afzal were arrested and challan against them was submitted and after trial they were acquitted vide judgment dated 24-4-2001. The present appellant alongwith Nasar lqbal and Yasar Arfat were declared proclaimed offenders and he was arrested on 24-6-2001. Present appellant was arrested by Zia Aslam, S.I. P.W.13 who while in police custody led to the recovery of 7MM rifle P.7, which was taken into possession through memo. Exh.P.F. Thereafter, Nasar lqbal and Yasar Arfat were also arrested and challan against them was submitted, who have been acquitted through the impugned judgment.
10. ' The trial Court framed the charge against the accused. They denied the allegations and claimed trial.
11. ' During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused.
12. ' The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Muhammad Aslam, P.W.4 who conducted the post- mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Ghazala Bibi and found the following injuries on her body:--
(1) There was an entrance bullet wound at the right side of skull measuring 1 x 1 cm there was no blackening or tattooing around the wound. Margins of the wound were inverted. Entry wound was 6 cm above the right ear. Wound was in oblique in direction towards the left side of the skull. .(2) A gun bullet wound of size 1-1/2 x 1 cm. Margins of the wound were everted and there was no staining across the wound. Wound was about 3-1/2 cm above the left ear. It was the wound of exit.
13. ' The ocular account was furnished by Muhammad Nawaz, P.W.10 who was father of the deceased and Ali Sher, P.W.18 who claims to be the eye-witness of the occurrence. The remaining witnesses are of formal nature and need not to be discussed.
14. ' After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations and claimed his innocence and false involvement.
15. ' The trial culminated into conviction and sentence of the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. While the complainant has filed Crl. Revision No.65 of 2003 for enhancement of the sentence. Both the matters are being decided by this judgment.
16. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it was a cross case as S'ahbaz Akmal, brother of the present appellant was murdered by the complainant party and one accused namely, Khurram Shahzad is still at large and the complainant party in order to make the cross case has murdered Mst. Ghazala by themselves and the appellant has been falsely implicated. It is further argued that the recovery has not been believed as no empty was taken into possession. The prosecution witnesses are interested and inimical and the ocular account is contradictory to the, medical evidence. The co-accused on the same evidence have been acquitted, therefore, the appellant is also entitled for acquittal. In support of his contentions learned counsel has placed reliance on 1992 PCr.LJ 1773 Nazeer Ahmad v. The State, 1995 M LD 374 Siyano v. State, 1993 PCr.LJ 1118, 1991 M LD 1623 Noor Akbar and another v. The State and others 1994 PCr.LJ 2000 Zahid alias Zaddo v.
17. State, 1992 PCr.LJ 2033 Ghulam Ali v. State and 1992 PCr.LJ 2092 Muhammad Iqbal v. The State.
18. ' The appeal has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant and for the State. Learned counsel for the complainant has prayed for enhancement of the sentence.
19. ' I have given due consideration to the contentions raised at the bar and also perused the record.
20. The appellant was specifically nominated in promptly recorded F.I.R. With specific role. Only one bullet injury was available on deceased Mst. Ghazala which has been attributed to the present appellant. He absconded after the occurrence and was arrested on 27-5-2001 after acquittal of his co-accused. The recovery of weapon of offence is of no consequence as no empty was taken into possession from the spot. Although Muhammad Nawaz, complainant is father of the deceased and Ali Sher, P.W.18 is his relative and is not resident of the place but they have sufficiently explained their presence at the spot. Muhammad Nawaz being father of the deceased his presence at the spot cannot be doubted. He is not closely related to the accused Khurram Shahzad who is proclaimed offender for causing murder of Shahbaz Akmal, brother of the appellant and there is no reason foi false implication of the appellant by letting of the real culprit. I do not find any contradiction in the ocular account and the medical evidence. Although Dr. Muhammad Aslam, P.W.4 has admitted in his earlier statement that he got recorded before the Court that .Blackening and tattooing was present around the wound but that was not the correct statement. The ocular account furnished by Muhammad Nawaz, P.W.10 and Ali Sher, P.W.18 corroborated by absconsion of the appellant, is sufficient to prove his guilt. The case-law referred to by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The appraisal made by the learned trial Court is upto the norms and standards laid down by the Superior Courts. The trial Court has already taken lenient view by awarding lesser sentence, therefore, I do not find any force in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed.
21. Crl. Revision No.65 of 2003 for enhancement of sentence is also dismissed having no force.