' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAMUZ-ZAMAN, J.---Appellants Abdul Haq and Nazir Khan along with Khan Bahadur Khan were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar for the murder of one Aman Ullah in case F.I.R. No,32 of 2000, dated 28-5-2000 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at. Police Station Railway Police Bhakkar, who vide judgment, dated 30-11-2001 while acquitting co-accused convicted both the appellants under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced them imprisonment for life. Appellants were also directed to pay Rs,25,000 (rupees twenty five thousands) each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, or in default whereof to undergo six months' S.I.
' Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellants filed criminal appeal i.e, Crl. Appeal No,2039 of 2001 whereas complainant Muhammad Nawaz filed criminal revision i.e, Crl. Rev. No,928 of 2001 for the enhancement of sentence of both the appellants/respondents. Both these matters are being disposed of by this single judgment. #TBS occurrence above said Faiz Ullah arranged a dinner of Muhammad Khan 'son of Ahmad Khan,. Caste . Pathan, resident of Piplan who is still P.O. And Aman Ullah deceased. In that dinner above said Faiz Ullah introduced Aman Ullah deceased with the above said Muhammad Khan P.O.
Later on Aman Ullah deceased was murdered at the hands of above said Muhammad Khan P.O.
And Faiz Ullah, because said Muhammad Khan at that time P.O., therefore nobody was ready to give the statement against him The complainant party was informed about this occurrence when they were 'present at their house.
They firstly tried to trace out the real culprits, but when failed to do so, false case was registered against me and my other co-accused due to enmity. Later on the investigation of this case was conducted by Muhammad Saqlain Naqvi A.I. G./D.I.-G.
South, Muhammad Siddique Bhatti D.S.P. Railway Lahore/ I.-G. Office Lahore and lastly Raja Muhammad Iqbal D.S.P. All the above said I.Os. Were of the view that I and my co-accused mentioned in the F.I.R. Were innocent and Muhammad Khan above said P 0 was the actual murderer. The local police tried their best to join him with the investigation, but failed to do so. The above said I.Os. Were also of the vieW that recoveries of pistol upon me and my co-accused Nazir Khan were fake. The employees of Railway track informed the police #TBE
2. Facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 28-5-2000 Aman Ullah deceased along with his father Muhammad Nawaz and brothers Sana Ullah and Zia Ullah came to Piplan Town in connection with some domestic affair and at about 8-45 a.m. They were returning home Aman Ullah deceased was ahead while Muhammad Nawaz, Sana Ullah and Zia Ullah P.Ws.
Were following him. Aman Ullah was about to cross the railway line, when Abdul Haq Khan and Nazir Khan both armed with pistols while Khan Bahadar Khan empty-handed came there on a motorcycle. Khan Bahadar Khan raised Lalkara while de-boarding from the motorcycle instigating his co-accused to kill Aman Ullah. Whereupon Abdul Haq Khan fired from his pistol which hit Aman Ullah on the right side of the abdomen. Fire made by Nazir Khan hit Aman Ullah deceased on the forehead above the eyebrow on the right side. Aman Ullah fell down and died at the spot.
Thereafter all the accused while riding on motorcycle fled away.
' The motive behind the occurrence as narrated in the F.I.R, was a previous enmity between the deceased and appellant Abdul Haq.
3. After formal investigation' challan was submitted before the trial Court where prosecution produced nine witnesses including Muhammad Nawaz (P. W.6) and Sana Ullah (P.W.7) eye- witnesses.
4. Appellants were also examined by trial Court under section 342, Cr.P.C., while answering to the question "why this case against you and why the P.Ws. Have deposed against you?" Abdul Haq appellant replied as under:--- ' "The case against me is false and the P.Ws. Are closely related to Aman Ullah deceased, as they have falsely deposed against me and my co-accused. Actually it was a blind murder. Aman Ullah deceased was not enjoying good character reputation. He developed illicit intimacy with the daughter of one Faiz Ullah, close relative of the deceased, Few days prior to the of P.S. Piplan. The police of P.S. Piplan informed the railway police Bhakkar about the dead body. The railway police Bhakkar reached at the spot and summoned the complainant party from their house. Later on a false case was registered against me and my co-accused".
' The same reply was adopted by Nazir Ahmad appellant.
' None of the appellants made any statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C, however, produced Aman Ullah A.S-I. As D.W.1. The crux of the statement of this witness is that during the investigation conducted by him and other police officers, both the appellants were found innocent.
' Learned trial Court after appraisal of evidence vide judgment, dated 30-11-2001 convicted and sentenced both the appellants as narrated earlier.
5. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the record of this case with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
' On 28-5-2000 at about 8-45 a.m. Aman Ullah (deceased) in the company of his father Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.6) and brothers Sana Ullah (P.W.7) and Zia Ullah (given up) was coming back from Piplan Town. When they reached near the railway crossing appellants being armed with pistols along with other co-accused launched attack and committed the murder of Aman Ullah.
Both the eye-witnesses while deposing before the trial Court unanimously stated that fire made by Abdul Haq had hit Art= Ullah deceased on the right side of abdomen, whereas Nazir Khan had caused fire-arm injury on the forehead. The medical evidence i.e, post-mortem report, also affirms the ocular account in this regard. The presence of both these eyewitnesses in the circumstances of this case seems to be natural and plausible. The discrepancies in the statements of these witnesses as highlighted by the learned counsel during the arguments are minor in nature and in the circumstances of this case are ignorable. It was also argued that this occurrence took place at 8-45 a.m. But was reported after almost five hours i.e, at about 1. p.m. And that the time was consumed to concoct and fabricate the story. I am afraid this contention has no force.
Immediately after the occurrence the matter was reported to the police at Police Station Piplan by the Railway Authorities. The same fact stands established from TP message (though not exhibited by the trial Court, is available on the record). In response to the same Aurengzaib A.S-I. (P.W.4) reached at the spot and recorded the statement of complainant (Fard Bian) at about 9-30 a.m.
Since this occurrence took place on the railway track and only Railway Police had the jurisdiction to inquire into the matter, copy of Fard Bian was sent to Police Station Railway at Bhakkar for the registration of the F.I.R. P. E. The said police station is about 82 K.M. From the place of occurrence. In this backdrop of the case it cannot be said that F.I.R. Was Registered after consultation and deliberation. No doubt during the investigation conducted by certain Investigating Officers, appellants were found innocent, but except Aman Ullah Khan A.S-I. (D.W.1) no other police officer was produced. Similarly it is an admitted fact that during the reinvestigation the complainant party was never made to join the investigation. Even otherwise the finding of the police is not binding on the Court and the matter has to be decided after evaluating the evidence of both the parties.
' The evidence of both the said eyewitnesses which is persuasive in nature has B painted a bright and vivid picture of the occurrence, the same also inspires confidence and in the circumstances of this case I am convinced to rely upon the same even in the absence of any corroborative piece of evidence. This appeal has no merits, the same stands dismissed.
6. As far criminal revision for enhancement of sentence of appellants is concerned, admittedly none of the appellants repeated the fire during the occurrence. Similarly the empties recovered from the spot did not match with the weapons recovered at the instance of C appellant. In case titled Khawand Bukhsh and others v. The State and others PLD 2000 Supreme Court 1, such like circumstances were considered as a mitigating circumstance. In this view of the matter finding no force in revision (Crl. Rev. No,928 of 2001), the same also stands dismissed.