QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---The captioned reference and appeal arise out of an incident which occurred on 13-2-2012 within the area of Shah Khurram Colony, at a distance of 1 furlong from Police Station Dehli Gate, Multan, wherein Liaqat All Constable No,819 hereinafter referred to as the deceased was fatally shot, allegedly at the hands of Tahir Mehmood alias Acchu hereinafter referred to as the appellant. Muhammad Shahid (PW-8) sustained fire shot injury in the occurrence. Prosecution case set up in complaint (Exh.PA/1) recorded by Maqbool All S.I. (PW-11) is that on the fateful day, while he was on patrolling in the company of Ijaz Ahmad 1601/HC, Anjum Zahoor 1320/C, All Nawaz 3657/C, Muslim Fayyaz 1908/C, Liaqat All 819/C (the deceased) and Asghar Ali 1389/C in official vehicle bearing registration No,MLD/2801, near 'khuni burj', received wireless message that a person was causing panic and harassment through firing and that he had also injured one person. Upon this information, the police party arrived at the scene and found Muhammad Shahid (PW-8) lying in injured condition; the appellant tried to flee from the scene when the deceased headed to apprehend the appellant who after exhorting him to stay away made a straight fire shot which hit the deceasedD on the right side of his abdomen. The incident attracted people that included Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Mukhtar. The accused was apprehended at the spot with .9 mm caliber pistol; the deceased in injury before reaching the hospital. Complaint (Exh.PA/1) was recorded at 7-30 a.m which was converted into formal F.I.R. At 7- 45 a.m. Autopsy was conducted at 1-00 p.m while Muhammad Shahid (PW-8) was medically examined at 8-35 a.m. Same day.
During spot inspection 14 casings of .9 mm Caliber and blood stained earth were secured. Autopsy was conducted by the District Standing Medical Board, comprising of Dr. Shahid Mehmood Bokhari, Dr. Saeed Rabbani, Dr. Raza Mohy-ud-Din and Dr. Liaqat Tareen, Dr. Raza Mohy-ud-Din appeared as PW-10. The findings of the Standing Medical Board are as follows:-- "The dead body is lying flat on the table. The eyes and mouth are, semi close. The dead body is cladded in (Police Uniform) Black shirt/Khaki pants, white sleeve vest and saleti colour under pajama, jarsi, shirt, under Pajama and vest have corresponding holes while pants torn at the back.
Pants and under pajama are stained with blood. Body is of well built and musculature. Rigor mortis is present in the upper body. No mark of ligature seen on the neck. Postmortem staining in present on the back of the body. The dead body is pale as a hole.
INJURIES & DIESECTION Hyoid bone is found intact.
"Fire arm wound measuring 01 cm x 1/2 cm with inverted margins and collar of abrasion present on front of right iliac fossa, 10 cm below and to the outer from the umbilicus and 07 cm medial to the right anterior superior iliac spine. (wound of entry). It went inwards abdominal cavity, and then downwards, to the left and to the backwards. It injured right common iliac vessels leading to massive haemorrhagic shock due to sudden severe haemorrhage. Abdominal cavity is full of blood. It approved a perforating injury as proved by straight probing. It fractured the left hip bone and then it appeared as wound of exit with everted margins measuring 1-1/2 x 01 cm on upper and inner quadrant of left buttock, 04 cm for the posterior mid line".
2. Duration between injury and death was noted as immediate while between death and postmortem as about 6 hours. Muhammad Shahid (PW-8) was noted to have following injuries on his person:--
1. A lacerated wound of entry measuring 3/4 cm into 3/4 cm, DNP (depth not probed), with inverted and abraded collar on the lateral aspect of left lower leg, 8 cm below the lefty knee joint:
2. A lacerated wound of exit measuring 1 cm x 1 cm, DNP with everted margins on the posterior aspect of left lower leg, 12 cm below the left popliteal fossa.
The case was investigated by a joint investigation team (J.I.T) and upon conclusion of investigation, the appellant was sent to face trial before Special Court constituted under The Anti- Terrorism Act of 1997 (Act No,XXVIL of 1997) where he was indicted on 5 counts; appellant denied the charge and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution in order to bring home charge against the appellant produced as many as 12 witnesses besides relying upon forensic reports. Ijaz Hussain HC (PW-6), Ali Nawaz Constable(PW- 7) Muhammad Shahid (PW- 8), Muhammad Fayyaz Constable (PW-9) and Maqbool S.I (PW-11) furnished ocular account, Maqbool Ali S.I (PW-11) reiterated on solemn affirmation case set up in complaint (Exh.PA/1), he testified about arrest of the appellant, seizer of 9 mm pistol, 8 live bullets, belt of pistol, magazine, license of pistol and 14 empties from the spot. He deposed about seizer of blood from the spot as well. Relevant portion of his narration regarding the occurrence is reproduced below:- "On 13-2-2012, I along with Ijaz Ahmad head constable and five police constables namely Anjum Zahoor, Ali Nawaz, Fayyaz, Liaqat and Asghar Ali was on patrolling duty in official van and was present at chowk Khuni Burj, Multan. I received an information through wireless control at 7-00 am that a man is firing and creating harassment, panic among the people in Mohallah Shah Khurram, Multan and he has injured a man by fire. I along with my subordinates went to the spot within 4/5 minutes and found a man PW-Muhammad Shahid son of Muhammad Aslam was lying in an injured condition by fire. A man Tahir Mahmood resident of Baber Road, Multan (present in court) was firing at Muhammad Shahid who seeing the police party ran away. Liaqat Ali 819/C ran towards him to apprehend the accused but Tahir Mahmood raised a "Lalkara" that in case, he was arrested or pursuit, then he would kill with fire shot. The deceased stepped ahead to arrest Tahir Mahmood accused but Tahir Mahmood made fire on the person of Liaqat Ali who sustained injuries on right side of his abdomen who after sustaining injuries fell down. On alarm, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Mukhtar PWs were attracted at the place of occurrence and we 'apprehended Tahir Mahmood at the spot with a pistol .9 mm bore".
Ijaz Hussain HC (PW-6), Ali Nawaz Constable(PW-7) and Muhammad A Fayyaz Constable (PW-9) are in complete unison with Maqbool Ali, S.I (PW-11).
Statement of Muhammad Shahid (PW-8) on whose rescue, the police party arrived at the scene testified in the following terms; "Stated that on 13-2-2012, 1 after being free from my job was passing through Shah Khurram to pull Sheedi Laal. There was firing and a fire shot hit me. After having received the fire shot 1 became unconscious. I was shifted to the hospital and after sometimes I became into senses, it was known to me there that it was Tahir Mahmood alias Achoo who had fired. I remained admitted in the hospital for one day. The fire shot hit me on my left leg."
His cross examination is as follows:- "I do labour in Mohallah Manzoor Abad Multan. On the day of occurrence I left the place of labour at about 3-00 a.m.. I was present at the place of occurrence at 4-00 a.m. It was a dark night.
There was no any light on the place of occurrence. There was fog as well. I could not identify any of the persons whose fire shot had hit me. There was no any police official when I was injured by the fire shot. I had become unconscious after receiving the fire shot injury therefore, I did not know what happened later on. I was told by the police official that it was Tahir Mahmood accused who had fired upon me at the place of occurrence".
On the forensic side reports of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PN), Serologist (Exh.PQ) and Punjab Forensic Science Agency are in positive; blood secured from the spot was found of human origin. Pistol recovered from the appellant was in mechanically operating condition and accompanying empties wedded there with.
4. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. For committing Qatl-i-amd of the deceased Liaqat Ali and sentenced him to death with compensation of Rs,500,000 or undergo 6 months' S.I. Appellant was also convicted under section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to death along with fine of Rs,500,000 or to undergo six months S.I in default thereof. For murderous assault on Muhammad Shahid (PW-8) appellant was convicted under section 324, P.P.C. And sentenced to 10 years R.I. With the fine of Rs,50,000 or 6 months' S.I. In default thereof. Appellant is convicted under section 353, P.P.C. And sentenced to _1 year R.I. With fine of Rs,10,000 or to undergo one month S.I. Finally, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under section 186, P.P.C. And sentenced him to two months S.I. Along with fine of Rs,1500 or in default S.I. For,.5 days thereof. Sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased was a man with a dubious character, done to death in an unwitnessed occurrence under mysterious circumstances and the appellant has been roped into this case on the basis of an FIR which is outcome of consultations and deliberations; that all the PWs who supported the charge are police officials unworthy of any credence. It is further argued that despite availability no independent witness came forward to support the prosecution case; that no specific time of the occurrence is given in the first information report and the witnesses are discrepant and contradictory to each other on material points of their testimony. The learned counsel has laid special stress on the testimony of Muhammad Shahid (PW-8) who according to him has not supported the prosecution's case; that specific section of the. Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is not mentioned in the charge; that due to fog and poor visibility identification of the appellant was not possible. That positive report of Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory cannot be considered to the detriment of the appellant on account of even dated dispatch. It is lastly argued that in any case it is not a case of capital sentence as on prosecution's own showing the appellant had no motive to take life of the deceased and as such he deserves to be visited with the leniency.
6. Conversely, the learned D.P.G supported the impugned judgment and contends that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt through trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence which is fully corroborated through medical evidence and forensic reports. He has prayed for the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of death penalty inflicted upon the appellant.
7. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record with their assistance.
8. The learned counsel's assault on the antecedents of the deceased is without any evidential basis, therefore, merits outright rejection. Similarly, the manner in which the deceased was killed is not shrouded in mystery; he laid his life in the line of duty valiantly, while vindicating the dignity and honor of his calling. Muhammad Shahid (PW-8) was medically examined by Dr. Asif Jameel Ansari (PW-4) at 8-03 a.m. who noted firearm injuries on his person and this fact goes a long way to establish beyond a shadow of doubt that deceased accompanied the police party to the spot pursuant to information about the happening which is 'prosecution's case set up in the first information report. Relevant portion of autopsy report reproduced above shows that deceased was clad in police uniform having corresponding holes thereon. FIR is not result of consultations or deliberations as the appellant was arrested red-handed with his weapon and there was no occasion or necessity for such an exercise. Similarly, we have found no material contradictions in the statement of witnesses who were subjected to a grueling cross examination and returned from witness box unscathed; difference between timings given by some of them is not of much consequence as such minute things are not observed in crisis situations and remembered after lapse of time with a meticulous exactitude. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any irreconcilable contradiction amongst the eye-witnesses. Narrative variations do occur in human discourse. In so far as appellant's case that Muhammad Shahid (PW-8) who is an important prosecution witness has categorically stated that he did not identify the assailant and that despite availability no independent witness was associated from the public is concerned, we hold that police officials are as good witnesses as anyone from the public for the reason that it is not the status of a person that confers credibility on him as a witness but it is intrinsic value of his testimony which is considered for acceptance of his deposition.. In the circumstance of present case M/s. Ijaz Hussain HC (PW-.6), Ali Nawaz Constable (PW-7) Muhammad Shahid (PW-8), Muhammad Fayyaz Constable (PW-9) and Maqbool Ali S.I (PW-11) are natural witnesses whose presence at the spot cannot be disputed. Adverting to the statement of Muhammad Shahid (PW- 8) we have noticed that he was subjected to a very convenient and benign cross examination wherein he reciprocated obligingly for obvious and understandable reasons; his reticence to speak whole truth and unwillingness of witnesses from public to come forward in aid of justice epitomize social apathy towards our civic responsibilities. This does not affect the merits of case in hand which stands firmly on strong evidential foundations referred to above. Even dated dispatch of casings and 30 caliber pistol lend corroborative support to the prosecution's case without reservation. No doubt, we ordinarily insist before placing reliance upon Forensic Science Laboratory report that casings must reach Forensic Lab prior to the arrest of accused and recovery of weapon F intended to be compared. But where an accused is arrested red-handed with the weapon and casings are secured same day, even dated dispatch does not diminish value of a positive report. In the present case, there is an additional circumstance and that is license of 30 caliber pistol, which established an independent nexus between the weapon used in the occurrence and the appellant.
Objection of the learned counsel about omission by the learned trial Court to specifically mention the section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in the charge is merely hyper-technical causing no prejudice to the appellant who was fully conscious about the nature of proceedings against him and represented through a counsel of his choice. Learned counsel's argument that in any case its a case of lesser penalty as the appellant had no motive against the deceased is also besides the mark, as this incident is not structured on any conventional motive, the deceased was fatally shot when he, in discharge of his duty, attempted to bring the appellant to the due process of law, therefore, we find no mitigating circumstance favoring the appellant.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond a shadow of doubt on second, third, fourth and fifth counts; convictions and sentences under the above counts are maintained, death sentence is CONFIRMED.: Capital Sentence Reference No,5 of 2013 is answered in POSITIVE however, the appellant is acquitted on fifth count relating to murderous assault on Muhammad Shahid (PW-8) as the said witness for reasons given above opted not to implicate him.