'Aasim Ali appellant through this Crl. Appeal No. 932 of 2004 assails the judgment dated 4.5.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Judge Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, Faisalabad whereby he convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a further direction to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased as contemplated by Section 544-A Cr.P.C. and in default thereof to further undergo 6 months S.I. availing the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as gathered from the FIR Ex. PF/1 lodged by Ahsan-ul-Haq complainant (PW16), are that on 27.2.2002 at about 7.30 p.m. one Sardar Muhammad informed the complainant on telephone that his nephew (Bhatija) Naveed-ur-Rehman, who was sitting on his medical store, had been injured by Aasim Ali appellant by a pistol shot and was lying in hospital in injured condition whereupon the complainant alongwith his brother Abdul Shakoor reached the spot where Sardar Muhammad told that Naveed ur Rehman and Aasim Ali were exchanging hot words with each other inside the medical store when Aasim Ali picked up a pistol and fired on the 'deceased hitting on the front side of his urinary bladder who became unconscious where after the appellant picked him up and took him to Civil Hospital in a rickshaw in injured condition where, after some time, he succumbed to the injuries. The complainant and his brother Abdul Shakoor reached the hospital. Leaving Abdul Shakoor near the dead body the complainant proceeded to the police station and lodged the FIR.
3. PW13 Muhammad Nawaz S.I. after receiving the information on 27.7.2002 at 9 p.m. rushed to the hospital. Ahsan-ul-Haq complainant produced before him a written complaint Ex. PF on the basis of which FIR Ex. PF/1. He inspected the dead body of Naveed-ur-Rehman lying in the hospital, prepared injury statement Ex. PD and inquest report Ex. PE and sent the dead body to the mortuary for autopsy. He visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of PWs under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a rough site-plan of the place. of occurrence Ex. PL. On 28.2.2002 during investigation at the place of occurrence Bashir Ahmad constable produced before the I.O. the last worn clothes of the deceased, Shalwar P-1, Qameez blood-stained P2 vest blood stained P-3 Swaiter P-4. The same were sealed into a parcel vide memo Ex. PA. On 1.3.2002 he got prepared the scaled site-plan Ex. PM and Ex. PM/1. He collected the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and made into a sealed parcel vide memo Ex. PK, collected one bullet empty P-8 of pistol .30 bore which was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PJ. On 3.3.2002 he arrested Aasim Ali appellant and obtained his physical remand who led to the recovery of pistol .30 bore from his house which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PH and prepared rough sketch thereof Ex. PH/1. He recorded the statements of the PWs under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who attested the relevant documents prepared during investigation. After completion of the investigation the I.O. submitted the challan before the Court concerned.
4. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as 16 witnesses and tendered in evidence report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PO, the report of the Serologist Ex. PP, and that of the Forensic Science Lab Ex. PQ closed its case.
5. After closure of prosecution evidence the trial Court recorded the statement of Aasim Ali appellant under Section 342 Cr.P.C. who did not opt to appear as a witness in his defence under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. In reply to the question "Why this case against you?" the appellant stated as under:-- "As a matter of fact the deceased was trembling at the spot and number of persons were gathered there around the deceased. To save the life of the deceased and getting his medical treatment I boarded the deceased in a rickshaw with the help of other persons which were also present there and immediately rushed to the Civil Hospital, Faisalabad where I got, admitted the deceased in an injured condition for his treatment. The deceased was admitted on same day and time in the hospital by the Doctor and the treatment was started. The Doctor on duty also delivered me prescription for getting medicine. I also took the same from the medical store. I tried best to save the life of the deceased and the staff of the hospital also tried best but the deceased was died in hospital. I was there meanwhile the father of the deceased reached at the hospital. This fact was informed to him that the deceased was brought by this man, before this I had already informed the police regarding the admission of the deceased in hospital meanwhile the civil line police was already present there before reaching the police of P.S. Peoples Colony. The Civil Line police has taken me in save custody, at the asking of the father of the deceased. Subsequently the civil line police brought me in the civil line police station on the same day at midnight. The People Colony Police taken to me from P.S. Civil Line at the asking of the father of the deceased as well as the complainant got me involved in a case falsely only due to suspicion. Subsequently the father of the deceased as well as complainant came to knowledge the real facts that the deceased was done to death by the unknown assailants but they were compelled by the mother of the deceased to involve me in this case because I already known to the deceased as well as his all the family members and some time my father supported the complainant about family disputes but due this grudge I was involved by the father and mother of the deceased through complainant Ahsan-ul- Haq who know nothing about the occurrence. All the PWs are inter-se related with each other and interested to be inimical, falsely deposed against me. The father of the deceased is a very influential person, who got challaned me by the police by affecting his influence. I am innocent."
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the FIR was lodged after due deliberation and consultation; that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses who were related to the deceased; that the occurrence had not been witnessed by any one, hence it was a blind murder; that the recovery of pistol from the appellant was of no consequence as no respectable of the vicinity had been joined by the investigating officer during recovery proceedings; that the motive put forth by the prosecution could not be proved at the trial and that the appellant had been falsely involved as the deceased had been murdered by some unknown persons, hence he was entitled to be acquitted. In the alternative it was prayed that keeping in view the fact that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the occurrence, the offence be converted from Section 302(b) to Section 306-A PPC and his sentence be reduced to 14 years.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that the occurrence took place at 7.30 p.m. and the FIR was lodged at 9.25 pm on the same day, thus the same was an immediately lodged FIR; that eye-witnesses of the occurrence were not related to the complainant or the deceased; that the eye-witness account was confidence inspiring as the witnesses during cross-examination remained unshaken in their testimony; that the said witnesses had no reason or motive to falsely involve the appellant in the murder of the deceased; that the ocular account was in line with the medical evidence; that the recovery of pistol had been effected from the accused and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was also in the positive, that apart from the eye- witness account there was evidence of extra-judicial concession which was also confidence inspiring; that the plea taken by the appellant was not plausible; and that the alternate prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant could not be granted as the learned trial Court, keeping in view that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of occurrence, had already taken a lenient view.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned State counsel and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
9. The ocular account was furnished by PW10 Rana Iftikhar Ahmad and PW12 Sardar Muhammad who are the eye-witnesses of the case. The said two witnesses are independent witnesses and are not related to the complainant or the accused. The defence despite cross-examining the said witnesses at length could not create any significant dent in their testimony. Although it was asserted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said two witnesses were related to the complainant, however, he has not been able to establish that from the record. The details given by the said two PWs regarding the time of occurrence, the locale of injury and the weapon used has remained unshaken. There are no material contradictions in the testimony of both the eye- witnesses and the minor discrepancies, if any, do not change the nature and the spirit of evidence given by the PWs. Although the witness of extra-judicial confession PW8 Muhammad Yousaf cannot be believed to the extent of motive for the said occurrence, however, his testimony also corroborates the prosecution case as narrated by the aforementioned eye-witnesses. The occurrence took place in a Bazar which is a crowded place, hence the presence of the said witnesses was natural as they also have shops in the vicinity, The plea of the accused that some one else had committed the murder of the deceased has no substance.
10. The deceased on his arrival at the hospital was immediately examined by Dr. Fayyaz Ahmad PW11 who found the following injures:-- 1.AA fire-arm wound of Injury 1 cm x 1 cm on front of abdomen lower part, cm to the left of midline 10 cm below the umbilicus.
1.BA fire-arm wound of exit 3/4 cm x 3/4 cm on right side of abdomen upper side two cm to the right of midline.
11. After Naveed-ur-Rehman died on account of the injury received by him at the hands of the appellant, his postmortem was conducted by PW3 Dr. Muhammad Zafar who also affirmed the injuries mentioned by Dr. Fayyaz in the Medico Legal Report. In both the reports only one wound of entry is shown on the belly of the deceased Naveed-ur-Rehman which was caused by a fire-arm weapon. The medical evidence, therefore, corroborates the ocular account vis-a-vis the time of injury, the locale of injury and the weapon used 12.On 27.2.2002 the investigating officer PW13 Muhammad Nawaz collected, one empty of bullet P6 of .30 bore pistol which was made into a sealed parcel at the spot and memo Ex. PA was prepared which was attested by Irshad Hussain and Zulfiqar PWs. The appellant was an absconder from the date of occurrence till his arrest on 3.3.2002. While on physical remand the appellant on 8.3.2006 while in police custody led to the recovery of pistol .30 bore P5 from his house which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PH duly attested by PW7 Bahadur Ali and Safdar Ali PW. The said pistol after being sealed into a parcel was handed over to Moharrir for onward transmission to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The report of the Forensic Science Lab Ex. PQ was returned in positive meaning thereby that the empty was wedded with the pistol recovered from the appellant. The recovery has corroborative value which in the present case has been proved by the prosecution through evidence referred to above. With the exception of the motive, the eye-witness account furnished by independent witnesses who had no enmity with the accused stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the evidence of recovery. Thus, from the above it is evident that the prosecution has proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt against the appellant through unshakable evidence. The alternate prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant was a juvenile at the time of occurrence, as such, his case fell within the ambit of Section 306-A PPC and that the sentence of imprisonment for life was uncalled for is without any substance as the learned trial Court keeping in view the provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2002 has already awarded lesser sentence to the appellant for the murder of Naveed-ur-Rehman deceased.
13.For what has been stated above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Consequently, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant vide the impugned judgment is upheld.