RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J. -- This appeal has been filed to assail the correctness of the judgment of Shariat Court dated 30.11.2011, whereby the judgments passed by the Tehsil Criminal Court and first Appellate Court were upheld.
2. The summary of the case is that the complainant Arshad Mehmood, lodged an F.I.R, In the offences under Sections 324 and 34, A.P.C., at Police Station Dadyal on 14.8.2004. According to the prosecution story, the goats of Sajid Rashid son of Abdul Rashid entered into the fields of complainant. He turned the goats out and made a complaint to Sajid Rashid. Upon this. Sajid Rashid, the accused, exchanged harsh words with the complainant and therefore, came at the place of occurrence armed with 12-bore gun. Khalid Mehmood and Abdul Rashid armed with hatchets also came there and attacked the complainant. Sajid Rashid, accused, fired two shots at the complainant. The pellets hit the complainant at his left arm and head. On hearing the noise his brother Durban came at the place of occurrence. Khalid Mehmood, accused inflicted injuries at head, right arm, right hand and back of the complainant with hatchet and he fell down. His brother tried to rescue him upon which Abdur Rashid, accused, inflicted injuries with hatchet on his both arms and left leg, while Khalid Mehmood, accused, gave hatchet blows at his head. The motive behind the occurrence was stated to be previous litigation between the parties. After registration of the case, the matter was investigated and a challan was submitted in the Tehsil Criminal Court Dadyal, who after recording the evidence and fulfilling all the codal formalities vide order dated 3.8.2005 convicted all the accused-appellants with the following punishments:--
(a) Abdul Rashid, accused was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment and Rs, 10,000/- as Daman under Section 337-F(iii), APC.
(b) Sajid Rashid, accused was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment and Rs, 10,000/- as daman under Section 337-F(iii) and one year's imprisonment alongwith Rs, 5000/- as fine under Section 13 of the Arms Act.
(c) Khalid Mehmood accused was sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs, 41350/- as Arsh under Section 337-A(iii), APC, 5 years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith Rs, 62025/- as Arsh under Section 337-A(iv), APC, 2 years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith Rs, 10,000/- as Daman under Section 337-F(v), APC and 3 years' imprisonment alongwith Rs, 10,000/- as Daman under Section 337-F(vi), APC.
3. Both the parties filed separate appeals before the District Criminal Court, Dadyai against the judgment of the Tehsil Criminal Court, Dadyai dated 3.8.2005. The .. convicts filed appeal against their conviction while the ^ complainant filed appeal for the enhancement of sentences awarded to the convicts. The learned Additional District Criminal Court, Dadyai, on 25.11.2005, while partly upholding the judgment of the Tehsil Criminal Court, Dadyai, converted the sentence awarded under Section 337-F(vi) to Sajid Rashid into 6 months' imprisonment alongwith the sentence of Rs, 10,000/- as daman under Section 337-F(i), A. P.C. whereas the sentence awarded in the offence under " Section 13 of Arms Act, 1965 to Sajid Rashid was set aside and the case to this extent remanded to the Trial Court.
4. Feeling aggrieved, both the parties filed separate appeals before the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The Shariat Court while accepting the appeals filed by this convicts remanded the case to the Trial Court. Against the order of the Shariat Court the complainant filed an appeal before this Court which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Shariat Court with the direction to decide the appeal on merit. The Shariat Court vide impugned judgment dismissed both the appeals one filed by convicts-appellants herein against their conviction and the other filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the convicts- appellants herein. Hence this appeal by the leave of the Court.
5. Ch. Bilal Ali, the learned counsel for the convicts-appellants, has stated that the judgment of the Shariat Court is against law and facts of the case. He argued that the Shariat Court failed to take into consideration the contradictory material placed on the record by the prosecution which makes itself the case doubtful and benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. He further argued that the learned Shariat Court failed to appraise the evidence in its true perspective which is against the settled principle of criminal administration of justice. He submitted that a learned single Judge of the Shariat Court has passed the impugned judgment in a hasty manner. While recording the impugned judgment the learned Shariat Court has recorded that "If the conscious of the Court is satisfied that the evidence of an eye-witness is cogent, natural and confidence inspiring, it can always be relied upon without any further corroboration." These words should have not been used by the learned Judge of the Shariat Court. He forcefully argued that the convicts- appellants were also injured and their injuries were suppressed by the complainant party. He submitted that all the P.Ws, were inter se related, therefore, their testimony cannot be believed. He lastly argued that the recovery witnesses are also not found reliable and trustworthy.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Bostan Ch. conversely argued that the judgment of the Trial Court is perfect and legal. He argued that against the convicts-appellants all the Courts below have concurrently recorded the findings, therefore, without assigning any cogent reasons these findings cannot be interfered with by this Court. He submitted that the injuries attributed to the convicts- appellants have been fully incorporated in the challan, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the convicts-appellants has no force in this regard. He argued that all the three Courts below have discussed all the points raised before this Court and resolved the same in a comprehensive manner. He further argued that it is a broad day light occurrence and the F.I.R, was lodged promptly, therefore, the question of false implication of the convicts- appellants does not arise. He argued that the convicts- appellants filed a writ petition for the registration of the case regarding the injuries sustained by them but the same was dismissed and they failed to challenge the dismissal order before any forum which has attained finality.
7. We have heard the arguments from both sides and perused the impugned judgment alongwith record made available. The occurrence took place on 14.3.2004 at 5:45 p.m., and the F.I.R, was registered under Sections 324 and 34, A.P.C. at Police Station Dadyal on 14.8.2004 at 7:15 p.m. It is a broad day light occurrence and the F.I.R, was lodged promptly, therefore, the question of false implication of the convicts-appellants does not arise. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the convicts- appellants is that the injuries sustained by the convicts- appellants were suppressed by the prosecution. We are inclined to examine the same at first.
8. A perusal of the challan shows that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the injuries sustained by the convicts-appellants under suppressed by the prosecution has no force. Furthermore, we have also examined the statements of convicts- appellants recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. The statement of Sajid Rasheed, convict, is as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} Similarly, the statement of Abdul Rasheed under Section 342, Cr.P.C., reproduced as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} A perusal of the statements of the convicts-appellants recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C, shows that the convicts were provided with ample opportunity to take such version if they were also injured while recording their statements under the above statutory provisions but no such stand has been taken by them while appearing before the Court. Now a plea has been taken by the convicts-appellants that they also sustained injuries in the occurrence and the prosecution suppressed the same. However, the contention that convicts should have been confronted by the Court with regard to their injuries cannot be given any weight at this stage as there was ample opportunity available to them to raise such plea and take a stance in the Trial Court under law.
8. It is settled proposition of law that the prosecution is duty bound to prove the case beyond any shadow of doubt likewise it is also settled that if a specific plea has been raised by the defence, the same must be proved with cogent reasons, In the instant case, no such plea in defence has been raised by the convicts-appellants, therefore, mere assertion made by the learned counsel for the convicts-appellants that the prosecution has suppressed the injuries sustained by the convicts- appellants has no weight as there is nothing on the record in this regard.
9. Now we advert to the ocular account of the eye-witnesses. The presence of the eye-witnesses is proved on the spot as all the eye-witnesses were injured in the occurrence. The injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses itself proves their presence at the spot. The ocular account of the eye-witnesses is in line with the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R, and further corroborated by the medical reports. The medical report of Arshad Mehmood complainant, read as under:-- "(Laceration & wound) bleeding from the front side of head which was 6-7 inches in length.
Laceration & bleeding from the right wrist joint.
Sign of bullet injury & mild bruise on left wrist joint.
Deep laceration & bleeding from the inner side of hand.
Three lacerations on the back.
Note. This patient was referred to D.H.Q. Mirpur after First Aid where treatment was done in surgical ward.
X-rays provided from D.H.Q. Mirpur showing:--
(1) X-ray shows fracture of frontal bone,
(2) fracture of right mid-shaft of ulna,
(3) critical injury seen in distal part of 4th metacasipal of right hand."
Whereas, the medical report of Qurban Ali, PW-2, is as under:-- "1. Two lacerations with bleeding on the right side of the head,
2. Deep wound on the left upper arm involving deltoid, and triceps muscles,
3. Laceration with bleeding on the right upper: arm.
4. Laceration with bleeding from right thigh,
5. Laceration with bleeding from left thigh,
6. Index finger was cut and was just hanging from the right hand.
Note
1. Depressed fracture of partial bone.
2. Fracture proximal phalanx, index and middle finger,
3. X-ray left arm showing no bony injury."
The ocular account furnished by the eye-witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and all the Courts below have elaborately dealt with and recorded findings while assigning the strong and cogent reasons. The Shariat Court in para 11 of the impugned judgment while discussing the statement of one of the eye-witnesses, Arshed Mehmood, who is also the complainant of the case has observed that the complainant while recording his statement has narrated the case of the prosecution in line with the story mentioned in the FIR. The statements of other witnesses, Khalid Mehmood and Abdul Rashid have also corroborated the story of the prosecution as narrated in the PIR.
10.We have examined the statements of Arshed Mehmood, PW-1 and Abdul Rasheed, PW-2, the injured witnesses, carefully but are unable to find out any material contradiction in their statements. According to the medical report the seats of injuries are the same which have been narrated in the F.I.R. Mere relationship of the eye-witnesses does not permit to discard their testimony who were otherwise natural and the defence has failed to point out any enmity or false implication of the convicts-appellants by the witnesses in the case. The defence also failed to bring on record and such enmity which could lead to the conclusion that the presence of the witnesses is doubtful, therefore, there is no occasion to disbelieve the prosecution version. The accused- appellant No,1 played a major role in the occurrence while causing two gun-shot injuries to Arshed Mehmood, complainant and his real brother, Qurban, with 12-bore gun. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the convicts-appellants are so minor in nature that those can be ignored straight away, therefore, we are fully convinced with the finding of the Trial Court as well as the Shariat Court in this regard.
11.So far the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that all the PWs are related to the complainant, therefore, their evidence is not trustworthy, is concerned, it may be observed that mere relationship is no ground to discard the evidence of the related witnesses, especially so when all the Courts below have held that all the PWs in the present case are natural witnesses, in this regard reliance can be placed on a case titled Feroze Khan v. The State (2002 SCM R 99), in which it has been observed as under:-- "...It is settled law by now that interested witness is the one who has an animus for false charge against the accused. Mere relationship of a witness to the deceased or the relationship of the eyewitnesses inter se is not enough of a reason to discard their testimony because such a witness is necessarily not an interested witness stricto senso. This Court has gone to the extent that even evidence of interested witnesses is always not discarded...."
In another case titled Kashif-ur-Rehman and others v. The State (1996 P.Cr.L.J. 1689), it has been observed as under:-- "...Insofar as the question of interested witnesses is concerned that is also well-settled and an interested witness is one who has a motive for falsely impacting an accused person"
Similarly in a case titled Faiz Ahmed v. The State [2008 SCM R 1559], it was observed as under:-- "15. It is true that the eye-witnesses are related to the deceased but mere relationship of the witnesses inter se and with the deceased is not sufficient to term them as interested witnesses unless it is found that there was any previous enmity or ill-will between the parties and the witnesses had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant in a criminal case, in the present case, admittedly, there was no previous enmity, ill-will or grudge between the appellant and the complainant party...."
12. The learned counsel for the convicts- appellants mainly stressed or the point that the injuries sustained by the convicts have been suppressed by the prosecution. As we have observed hereinabove that no material with regard to the injuries sustained by the convicts is brought on the record, therefore, this argument has no force. Moreover, the point has been dealt with by all the Courts below in a comprehensive manner while assigning the plausible reasons. The learned counsel for the convicts- appellants has also vehemently contended that there are discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses. No material discrepancies have been brought to our notice therefore, the argument of the learned counsel has no force and is repelled.
For the reasons stated above, we failed to see any perversity in the judgment passed by the Shariat Court, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed.