' The appellant namely Muhammad Aqeel was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Judge Juvenile Court, Khanewal, in case FIR No. 57/2004 dated 26.04.2004 registered under Section 302/34, PPC at Police Station Havaili Koranga, District Khanewal and vide judgment dated 29.08.2008, he was convicted under Section 302(b), PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life as Tazir. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the convict.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per FIR Exh.PE, are that 7/8 months prior to the occurrence, Abid Hussain accused abductied Mst. Mumtaz Mai, daughter of the complainant and then contracted marriage with her through Court. Abid Hussain accused had already married and his first wife and son Muhammad Aqeel had 'a grudge against Mst.Mumtaz Mai and they time and again quarreled with her 2/3 days prior to the occurrence Mst. Mumtaz Mai sent a message to her parents to take her to their house. On 26.04.2004 at about 10:00 a.m. The complainant alongwith his son Muhammad Arif and brother Muhammad Ramzan went to the Bhaini of Abid Hussain. On seeing them at his Bhaini, accused Abid Hussain raised lalkara and asked his son not to left alive Mst.Mumtaz Bibi today.
Thereafter, accused Muhammad Ageel fired with .12 bore gun to Mst.Mumtaz Mai which landed below her chest on abdomen, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The accused went out while raising lalkara to threaten the complainant and PWs that they would be killed, if they came near them.
3. Motive behind the occurrence was second marriage of Abid Hussain with Mst. Mumtaz Bibi and due to that grudge, Mst.Haseena Mai first wife of Abid Hussain and her son Muhammad Aqeel murdered Mst.Mumtaz Mai.
4. After registration of the case, the investigation was conducted and on its completion, the challan was submitted in the trial Court. The learned trial Court framed the charge on 26.09.2007 under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2001 which was denied by the appellant and he claimed trial.
5. To prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses during the trial. PW-1 Raja Ghulam Farid draftsman prepared scaled site plan Ex.PA, Ex.PA/1 and Ex.PA/2 in which, the scale of 1" = 10 feet was fixed. PW-2 Abdul Hameed 739/HC received sealed parcel containing gun .12 bore double barrel alongwith five live cartridges which he kept in Malkhana of the Police Station intact and handed over the same to Allah Buksh 68/C for onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory Lahore. Allah Buksh 68/C appeared as PW-3, who deposited above said sealed parcels to the office of FSL on 12.06.2004. PW-4 Falak Sher SI/SHO chalked out formal FIR Ex.PB. PW-5 Muhammad Yaqoob 413/HC received two sealed parcels containing blood stained earth and empty by Zulfiqar A.I SI/I.O. For keeping the same in safe custody in Malkhana of the Police Station and on 10.05.2004 he handed over said sealed parcels to Muhammad Ashraf constable for onward transmission to the office of FSL Lahore. PW-6 Muhammad Iqbal 206/C was the recovery witness of gun .12-bore alongwith five live cartridges, which was taken into possession by I.O. Vide recovery memo. Ex.PC. Muhammad Bashir PW-7 identified dead body of Mat. Mumtaz Mai at the time of post-mortem examination. PW-8 Muhammad Ashraf 853/C escorted dead body of Mst.Mumtaz Mai alongwith police papers to RHO Abdul Hakeem, then to Civil Hospital, Khanewal, then to THQ Kabirwala, then to Civil Hospital Kabirwala but post-mortem was not conducted due to odd hours of night. On the following day i.e. 27.4.2004 WMO Civil Hospital, Kabirwala conducted the post-mortem and after post-mortem examination WMO handed over to him last worn clothes of the deceased which he handed over to I.O. PW-9 Muhammad Hussain complainant appeared deposed the same story as narrated in his complaint Exh.PB. PW-10 Muhammad Ramzan was the eye-witness of the occurrence. Lady doctor Saima Ahsan appeared a PW-11 who conducted post-mortem of Mumtaz Mai and found following injuries on her body.
(i) 8 round entrance wound each was about 2 x 2 x 7 cm away from right breast and in front of right chest. Total surface area was 8 x 8 cm margins were inverted. Blackening and burning was present.
(ii) 8 rounded wound each was about .5 x .5 cm and 8 cm above hip joint. Total surface area was 14 cm x 8 cm margins were everted.
' After post-mortem examination, doctor opined that above-mentioned injuries were ante-mortem, caused by fire-arm weapons, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature due to hemorrhage and shock. The probable time within injuries and death was immediate and between death and post-mortem about 24-hours.
6. Muhammad Zulfiqar Heraj Inspector/I.O. Appeared as PW12, who conducted investigation of the case, visited the place of occurrence, collected blood stained earth beneath the cot and one empty of .12 bore gun P-6, prepared recovery memos, recorded the statements of PWs, got conducted post-mortem examination of dead body etc., declared accused Aqeel guilty and sent him to judicial lock up on 17.05.2004.
7. After tendering reports of Chemical Examiner, Serologist and Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PN, Ex.PO, Ex.PP the prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused was recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. And in reply to the question that why this case was against him and the PWs deposed against him, he replied that this false case has been registered against him due to grudge that his father Abid Hussain contracted marriage with Mst.Mumtaz Mai, daughter of Muhammad Hussain complainant and paternal niece of Muhammad Ramzan PW without their consent through Court. Due to this grudge, they got registered this false case against him and his father Abid Hussain. The PWs are related inter-se and they have falsely deposed against him.
However, the accused Muhammad Aqeel did not opt to get his statement recorded u/s 340(2), Cr.P.C.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is the result. Of mis-reading and non-reading; that the same is based on surmises and conjectures and passed in a hasty manner; that there are gross contradictions in ocular evidence and no direct evidence is on the file against the appellant; that there are discrepancies between the statements of PWs and prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
9. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General with the assistance of learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed this appeal and supported the impugned judgment. He further contended that medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular account, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for acquittal.
10. Arguments heard. Record perused.
11. The record shows that the occurrence took place on 26.04.2004 and the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 10.00 a.m., therefore, undoubtedly the FIR has been got lodged with all promptness and in such circumstances the chances of deliberations of pre-consultation are also diminished. The accused was previously known by the prosecution witnesses and it was a broad day light occurrence, therefore, there is also no question of mistaken identity or substitution.
The presence of the eye-witnesses is established. Mere relationship of the PWs with the deceased is no ground to discard their testimony. The prosecution version is given by ocular account of complainant PW9 Muhammad Hussain corroborated by the statement of Muhammad Ramz an, PW10 as well as positive reports of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PP, Chemical Examiner Ex.PN and Numerologist Ex.P0. Both the PWs have been consistent in their depositions and I have not noticed any serious discrepancy in their statements. Their statements/ ocular account are fully corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries and by expert evidence i.e. Report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PN and report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PP as well as report of Serologist Ex.P0.
In this case, appellant is the single accused, therefore, there is no chance of substitution. It is a settled proposition that even evidence of a single witness is sufficient to sustain or upheld the judgment of the trial Court. The ocular account is supported by other pieces of evidence of corroborative nature as noted above i.e. Medical evidence, recovery of weapon of offence, last worn clothes of the deceased and blood stained earth etc. Learned trial Court after having properly assessed the evidence reached at the just conclusion and judgment passed by trial Court did not suffer from any infirmity. On the other hand, the defence version given by the appellant himself in his statement under Section 342, Cr.P..C. Is not probable and he failed to establish his defence. The appellant has failed to establish his defense to show that he has been falsely involved in this case.
The reports of Chemical Examiner and Forensic Science Laboratory are also supportive of the prosecution evidence. He being the single accused was found liable for causing death of the deceased with firearm. As a result of above discussion, I hold that prosecution version stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt and the judgment of the learned trial Court is upheld. Hence this appeal has no force and same stands dismissed.