' SYED MANZOOR HUSSAIN GILANI, J.--- This appeal is filed against the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of the Shariat Court at Kotli on 29-10-2004, whereby sentence of 25 years rigorous imprisonment passed against the accused-appellant by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli was maintained, however, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is extended to the accused-appellant by the Shariat Court which was not earlier given by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kai.
2. The facts which led to the present appeal are that on the report of one Abdul Hayee son of Rehm Ali, lodged on 22-8-1997, a case under sections 324/337-A, A.P.C. Was registered against the accused-appellant at Police Station Kotli under F.I.R. No,157 of 1997 which was later on converted to section 302, A.P.C. On the death of Tahira Talat on 23-8-1997. It was alleged in the report that Mst.
Tahira Talat, daughter of first informant, was severely beaten by the accused-appellant on 21-8- 1997, in consequence of which she became unconscious and was carried on to Muzaffar Hospital, Kotli and then to District Headquarters Hospital, Kotli and on the refusal of the Hospital authorities to admit her, she was taken to the District Headquarters Hospital, Kotli and was admitted in intensive care unit. The informant stated that as he was out of home and when on getting information he went to the hospital and after seeing her daughter, he lodged the report. According to the first informant the accused-appellant had usually been beating the deceased Tahira Talat for being issueless and on the fateful day she was severely beaten.
3. The District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli sentenced the accused-appellant to 25 years' rigorous imprisonment under section 302(c) of A.P.C. On being proved guilty, on 13-5-2004. On appeal before the Shariat Court by the accused-appellant the sentence was maintained. However, it was ordered that the accused-appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
4. The learned Advocate appearing for the accused appellant, contended that the First Information Report has been lodged after a considerable delay although the place of occurrence was hardly two kilometers away from the police station. According to the learned Advocate no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution to prove its version, although the alleged place of occurrence is located within the town of Kotli and is thickly surrounded by the houses. He further contended that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are partisan, inimical and their statements suffer from material contradictions, which fact has not been taken into consideration by the Courts below. He also contended that the doctor in the post-mortem report has stated that the death of the deceased has taken place within 3-4 days of the injuries, although it had taken place within first 48 hours and this, according to the learned Advocate, is a material fact which creates doubt, rendering the sentence liable to be quashed. He also contended that two material witnesses have been given up by the Court and the recovery witnesses have not proved the recoveries, making the case doubtful.
5. The learned Advocate for the complainant, defending the orders passed by the Courts below, contended that two Courts of competent jurisdiction have come to concurrent finding on facts relating to the culpability of the accused-appellant and no misreading or non-reading of evidence is pointed out, neither is any contradiction found in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
According to him the accused-appellant has not furnished any explanation as to how the deceased sustained injuries which ultimately led to her death when the accused-appellant was present in the house and was seen by the witnesses beating the deceased which made her unconscious. He further contended that the eye-witnesses of the occurrence have appeared to support the prosecution case and it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt. He relied upon Khalid and another v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 761; Muhammad Anwar v. The State PLD 1997 Lah.
202. Rebutting the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant that prosecution witnesses are inter se related hence they cannot be relied upon, he contended that the prosecution witnesses are natural witnesses and no enmity is attributed against them by the accused- appellant, hence their relationship with the complainant does not discredit their testimony. He also contended that the circumstantial evidence of recovery, doctor's report etc., support the prosecution case and prove it beyond doubt. According to the learned counsel motive for beating the deceased to death is clearly established that the accused-appellant was annoyed with her wife for being issueless. The learned Advocate relied upon Abrar Hussain Shah v. The State 1992 SCR 294; Muhammad Khalil v. The State 1992 SCR 249 and Abdul Rashid and 3 others v. Abdul Ghaffar and 5 others 2001 PCr.LJ 524.
6. The learned Additional Advocate-General supported the contentions of the learned Advocate for the complainant.
7. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties we have gone through the orders passed by the Courts below. The learned Advocate for the appellant has also taken us through the evidence of a few of the prosecution witnesses. We have also considered the arguments of the learned Advocates of the parties in the light of the record and the reasoning recorded by the learned Courts below in support of their judgments.
8. Muhammad Zulfiqar, Muhammad Jamil and Hafiz Jalil are the eye-witnesses who went into his house when they were told by the children near the shop of Abdul Hamid Janjua that the accused is beating his wife. They saw him beating her with club and she was rendered semi-unconscious.
Mst. Naila Jabeen and Saeeda Zubair who are also eye-witnesses and visited the place of occurrence when they were told by Muhammad Zulfiqar and Jamil that on account of accused's beating the A accused is rendered unconscious. They have also supported the prosecution version that they saw the accused standing in the Veranda of his house and the deceased lying on the ground in a state of unconsciousness. They also stated that the accused brought the Ambulance on which the deceased was taken first to Muzaffar Hospital and then to the District Headquarters Hospital, Kotli. This exactly is the prosecution case and it has been unequivocally supported by the eyewitnesses.
9. The contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant that the prosecution witnesses are inter se related to the deceased hence their evidence cannot be relied upon, is devoid of force.
Relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased or complainant is no criteria for discarding their evidence. No enmity is alleged or attributed against the eye-witnesses, neither is any reason put forward as to why should they falsely implicate the accused. Mere relationship is no ground for discarding the evidence of the eye-witnesses if it is proved that they are the natural witnesses and their statements appear convincing and truthful. We place reliance on a case reported as Abrar Hussain Shah v. The State 1992 SCR 294; Muhammad Khalil v. The State 1992 SCR 249 and Abdul Rashid and 3 others v. Abdul Ghaffar and 5 others 2001 PCr.LJ 524.
10. The contention of the learned Advocate for the accused-appellant made in a very low profile tune that eye-witnesses Zulfiqar and Jamil had illicit relations with the deceased and they have in fact killed the deceased and falsely implicated the accused is ill-founded, against the record and an afterthought device. No such suggestion is positively given to the witnesses in the cross- examination neither has the accused stated it in his statements under sections 242 and 342, Cr.P.C.
Assuming the contention as correct for the sake of argument, it appears unnatural that they should have killed the deceased if they had consenting illicit relations with her. Under the circumstances they could have eliminated the accused not the deceased. Be that as it may, as the contention is not spelt out from record, it does not merit consideration at all.
11. The club with which the deceased was beaten by the accused is also recovered on the pointation of the accused and secured vide recovery memo. Exh.P.D. This recovery memo. Is testified by Zia-ur-Rehman and Zahoor Akhtar Sub-Inspector Police. The contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant that the witnesses for recovery do not belong to the locality hence their testimony cannot be relied upon, cannot be accepted for the reason that the recovery has been made on the pointation of the accused and one of the recovery witnesses is Investigating Officer and there is no reason for them to falsely implicate the accused. When no enmity or ulterior motive is alleged against the police, the testimony of the Police Officer cannot be discarded. Reliance is placed on a case reported as Muhammad Asif v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 890.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the doctor, who prepared the post-mortem report has not been produced in the Court and there is a disparity between the statement of the doctor and the medical report which cause a serious doubt in the case. The point is equally untenable. A perusal of the post-mortem report reveals that there were multiple bruises on the body of the deceased. The bruise on the right frontal bone and left temporal bone is stated to have caused prolonged comma which culminated in functional brain damage. This was the cause of death stated in the medical report. The disparity between the medical report and the report of the Police Officer is equally untenable as no material contradiction is found in the statement of the witnesses when the Investigating Officer has testified all the documents and post-mortem report is proved by Dr. Muhammad Farid. The contention that Dr. Raza Ahmad Gorsi, who conducted the post-mortem, was not produced in the Court and it was also not proved that he was not available in the Court on account of which Dr. Muhammad Farid appeared in the Court, also does not render the case doubtful. Dr. Raza Ahmad Gorsi was reported to be out of country on which Dr. Muhammad Farid was summoned. He has simply testified the signatures of the doctor while post-mortem report remains the same as it was. Moreover, it was clearly brought to the notice of the Court through an application by brother of deceased, Muhammad Ibrar Hussain, that Dr. Raza Ahmad Gorsi has gone to foreign country hence Dr. Muhammad Farid may be summoned.
This was allowed under the order of the Court, dated 29-1-2003, hence no illegality is attached to it.
It is permissible under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. Any person conversant with the handwriting and signatures of the doctor could appear and testify the same. Reliance is placed to a case reported as Muhammad Anwar v. The State PLD 1997 Lah.202.
13. As far the contention of the learned Advocate for the accused-appellant that F.I.R. Is lodged after 27 hours of the occurrence although the police station was just two kilometers away from the place of occurrence is concerned, it hardly effects merits and truth of the case as reasonable explanation has been furnished by the first informant, who is father of the deceased, that he was not at home and when he got information through prosecution witnesses, he reached the hospital and after seeing the condition of his daughter lodged the report. This statement is borne out by the prosecution witnesses. The explanation is plausible and appears compatible with human behavior that care is first to be taken of the injured person and after being apprised of truth, the report is lodged. The priority is always given to the treatment and rest of the events follow. Hence, this ground does not create any doubt to quash the sentence.
14. Two Courts below have come to a concurrent conclusion on facts. No reason is given for ignoring the statement of the prosecution witnesses neither has any discrepancy, contradiction, misreading or non-reading of the evidence being pointed out or found from record. The case appears to have been proved beyond any shadow of doubt.
' In the circumstances, finding no force in this appeal it is hereby dismissed.