' MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.---The concurrence as narrated in F.I.R. No.54 dated 29-3-2000 Police Station Yarik, District D.I. Khan indicates that on the fateful day the complainant Haji Gul Faraz, his nephew Mehrban Shah deceased along with other people were present in the premises belonging to Haji Jan Muhammad in connection with the preparation of feast of the marriage of Mst. Taj Begum, the niece of the complainant. Hidayatullh, accused/appellant, armed with a DB shotgun came to the scene of occurrence, shook hand with the people present there and in the meanwhile, Mehrban Shah proceeded towards the gate followed by Hidayatullah, on which, Mehrban Shah turned around and cried that Hidayatullah was killing him. Instantly Hidayatullah fired at him with his DB shotgun by which he was hit and fell to the ground. The injured was carried to the hospital but he succumbed to the injuries en route and so at the Civil Hospital, D.I. Khan, the report was lodged. After lodging the report, the Investigating Officer visited the spot and investigated the matter. The accused had been over-powered by the people present at the scene of occurrence and he was detained in a room from where he was recovered and arrested by the Investigating Officer. The weapon of offence was also produced to the Investigating Officer by an eye-witness which was allegedly snatched from the accused after he had committed the offence. The accused was sent for trial to the Court of Session and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, D.I. Khan, at the conclusion of trial, convicted the accused/appellant under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to life imprisonment and sum of Rs.50,000 as compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased and in default whereof, the convict had to suffer further S.I. For six months. This conviction and sentence has been challenged through the present appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the recovery of weapon was not made from the accused and any admission thereof before a police officer cannot be used against the appellant. He also added that the occurrence has taken place in a village which was at a negligible distance from Police Post Gilloti but instead of reporting the matter in a couple of minutes at the Police Post, the complainant delayed the lodging of the report which was ultimately made at the hospital after about 1-1/2 hours and therefore, the delay appeared to be intentional and the possibility of premeditation cannot be ruled out. It was also pointed out that despite the story of marriage ceremony, no evidence was collected to prove the occasion, rather the evidence belies the situation because admittedly all the nearer relatives of the said bride had gone for their professional engagements. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to encash a sentence appearing in the Examination-in-Chief of complainant Gul Faraz wherein he stated that "we grappled with accused Hidayatullah and we were holding him with our hands. We caught accused Hidayatullah when he fired at the deceased and shifted (accused) to the room". The learned counsel argued that if an accused was being held by several persons in the state of grappling, it was not possible for the accused to fire at the deceased and that too with a shotgun. He also suggested that even if the presence of the accused/appellant at the scene of occurrence is believed to be true, the intention to commit murder is negated and the possibility of erroneous pressing of the trigger by anyone during grappling could not be ruled out. The learned counsel finally referred to the seat of injuries, post-mortem report and the averments in the F.I.R. To state that at the time of incident, the deceased was allegedly proceeding towards the gate and he was being followed by the accused/appellant who allegedly fired at him and in such a situation, the deceased should have received the injury at the back whereas the medical report belies this ocular version as the inlet injury was in the lower abdomen. Hence the learned counsel for the appellant urged that in view of the several doubts in the case, the conviction of the appellant was not justified and even a single slip in the prosecution story entitles him to the freedom by extending benefit of doubt to him.
3. The learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the occurrence took place at 8-30 a.m. At a village and the hospital was at a distance of 45 kilometers. The injured was in a precarious condition. In a state of emergency, it was logical for the complainant to have rushed to the hospital instead of stopping at the Police Post for lodging the report and on arrival at the hospital, the report was promptly lodged without wastage of time at 10-00 a.m. He stated that a single accused has been not only nominated but was apprehended at the scene of occurrence just after commission of crime and handed over to Police from there. The parties are related to each other and there was no possibility of false accusation. The incident was seen by a large number of people. He stated that the witnesses were inmates of the house and natural on all scores. The occasion of marriage was duly proved through the statements of eye-witnesses. The weapon of offence was snatched from the accused by the eye-witness and presented to the police. The learned counsel for the complainant explained that the confusion with regard to the act of grappling and the firing of the fatal shot was a small typographical mistake. In fact the grappling did not precede the firing of the shot, rather just after the firing of the shot, there was grappling whereafter the weapon of offence was snatched and the accused was locked up in a room. With regard to the site of inlet wound, the learned counsel pointed out that even in the F.I.R., it is stated that the deceased, while proceeding towards the gate, had turned around and in the meanwhile received the injury and therefore, the medical evidence was in consonance with the F.I.R.
4. The analysis of the arguments coupled with the record shows that what has been argued on behalf of the complainant appears to be logical and convincing. It was a bright-day-light occurrence in a village within the four walls of a house where the close relatives were present in connection with the preparation for a marriage ceremony. The appellant appeared at the scene of occurrence armed with a gun and met the people present there. The deceased, apprehending the ill-intentions, tried to slip away and raised an alarm for his safety so that the people present there may intervene to avoid any mishap but prior to the effective interference of those available in the surroundings, the evil was committed and the fatal fire was shot. The accused was over-powered there and then and he was detained in a room and the weapon of offence was taken for safe custody. The immediate efforts were made to shift the deceased, then injured, in the state of emergency to the hospital for any possible medical help, however, he breathed his last on way to the hospital and the report was made at the Emergency Department of the Civil Hospital to the police. The Investigating Officer immediately proceeded to the spot, arrested the accused from the private custody, recovered the weapon of offence, prepared the site-plan and completed the investigation thereafter. This is such a nice narration of occurrence that even a single doubt or lapse cannot be inferred anywhere. The accused/appellant committed an offence as a dare devil and those present at the scene of occurrence moved in a logical manner and did what was required of them to be done. There was no occasion, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant, for stopping at the Police Post in such a state of panic. Promptly lodging the report may be essential but making efforts for protecting life of the injured was more emergent in nature.
The distance between the police station and the scene of occurrence, as recorded in the F.I.R., was about 9/10 kilometers and the preparation for the shifting of the injured in the state of shock and panic after the occurrence of such an unfortunate event and the arrangement of a vehicle for the shifting of the injured to the hospital and covering of the distance justifies the period elapsed between the occurrence and report.
5. The action of grappling, as highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant, was explained not only in the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant but from the fact that the accused was overpowered at the scene of occurrence, the weapon of offence was taken from him and he was placed inside a room. This could not be done without grappling by several people.
However, the presumption that the fire was shot during the process of grappling is far-stretched.
Even the sentence as recorded, though ambiguously, does not indicate that the shot was fired after the grappling. There are two sentences. The first reads as, "at that time we all grappled with accused Hidayatullah and we were holding him with our hands". There is no indication that he fired during the process of grappling or when he was being held by those around him. The second sentences says, "We caught accused Hidayatullah when he fired at the deceased and shifted the accused to the room". This is an independent sentence and it narrates the event in an unambiguous manner that when the accused fired at the deceased, he was caught by P.W. And others and he was shifted to the room. Normally when the statement is made by a witness in his own language and that is translated in English and transcribed by typing, such minor discrepancy may occur which alone is insignificant when the commission of offence is proved from all the corroborating evidence.
6. Lastly the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant relating to the seat of injury and the possibility of the stated position is fully explained when the medical evidence is examined along with the site-plan. The deceased has been shown at point No.1 proceeding towards the main gate and the accused/appellant is shown be at point No.9 which indicates that the position of the deceased was not squarely in front of the accused, rather the accused was at the right side of the deceased at the time of occurrence and not at his back and as stated in the F.I.R., the deceased turned around to inform the people about the ill-intention of the accused and the inlet wound, as described in the post-mortem report, was on right inguinal region and the exist wound appeared at the left inguinal region. The pictorial annexed to the post-mortem report indicates that the deceased received injury on the right side of the lower abdomen which found its exist on the left side thereof and therefore, there is no ambiguity nor conflict whatsoever in the F.I.R., site-plan and the medical evidence.
7. The result of the above discussion is that the case against the appellant was fully proved in the most convincing and logical order. Even a single ambiguity or doubt could not be convincingly urged in the entire prosecution version and the trial. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned trial Court which is hereby maintained and the appeal is dismissed.