Ch. Abdul Aziz, J.--Farooq Shah (appellant) involved in case FIR No. 115/2013 dated 16.04.2013 registered under Section 336-B, PPC read with Section 7 of Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 at Police Station Sinawan, District Muzaf fargarh, was tried by Judge Anti-T errorism Court D.G. Khan. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 25.09.2013 convicted and sentenced Farooq Shah (appellant) as under:
(i) Under Section 336-B, PPC to suffer imprisonment for life with the direction to pay fine of Rs. 12,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 10,00,000/- were ordered to pay to Mst. Shaista Bibi (victim) under Section 545, Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of fine of Rs. 200,000/- the appellant was ordered to further undergo SI for one year. The learned trial Court also directed that in case of non-payment of compensation, the said amount will be recovered as arrears of land revenue by adopting all usual modes of recovery including the attachment and sale of moveable or immovable properties of the convict in terms of Section 544-A (2). Cr .P.C.
(ii) Under Section 7(c) of Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with payment of fine of Rs. 100,000/- and in default whereof to further undergo SI for six months.
Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant. However , both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently .
Challenging his conviction and sentence, Farooq Shah (appellant) has filed the instant appeal.
2. Succinctly stated the facts of prosecution case as disclosed by complainant Ashiq Hussain (PW. 1) in FIR (Exh.P A/1) are to the effect that his unmarried daughter Mst. Shaista Bibi aged about 14/15 years was student of nursing class at Lahore; that on 16.04.2013 at about 10:45 p.m., he along with Shaista Bibi and two relatives, namely , Maqsood Ahmad and Asghar was present on the road side opposite to PSO petrol pump and was awaiting the arrival of bus scheduled for Lahore; that meanwhile Farooq Shah (appellant) while carrying a bottle of acid in his hand came there and threw acid upon Mst. Shaista Bibi and thereby caused burn injuries upon her face and body; that Ashiq Hussain attempted to catch hold of Farooq Shah (appellant) who also threw acid upon him and caused burn injuries on his body; that Farooq Shah succeeded to run away . Motive behind the occurrence statedly was that earlier Farooq Shah demanded the hand of Shaista Bibi from the complainant, who refused which created annoyance to him.
3. The law about this incident was set into motion on the statement (Exh.P A) of Ashiq Hussain (PW.1) which he made before Bashir Ahmad SI (PW.10) during his visit to the place of occurrence which shortly thereafter transcribed into FIR (Exh.P A/1). Bashir Ahmad SI examined Shaista Bibi and Ashiq Hussain (injured) and prepared their injury statements (Exh.PB & Exh.PD). He also sent both the injured to Rura l Health Centre, Sinawan under the escort of Ahmad Ali 1735/C. He also inspected the spot and prepared rough site-plan (Exh.PG). He also recorded the statement of injured Shaista Bibi in RHC Sinawan. Bashir Ahmad SI arrested Farooq Shah (appellant) on 19.04.2013, who on 25.04.2013 during investigation made disclosure and in pursuance thereof led to the recovery of empty bottle of acid (P.6) which was taken into possession vide memo Exh.PJ. Upon the conclusion of investigation, while declaring the appellant guilty , report under Section 173, Cr .P.C. was submitted in the Court.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the appellant produced ten PWs which include Ashiq Hussain Complainant (PW. 1) and Shaista Bibi (PW.2) who narrated as to how Farooq Shah (appellant) poured acid upon them, Dr.Allah Bakhsh (PW.3), Lady Dr. Madiha Wasim (PW.8) and Dr. Naheed Ahmed (PW.9) who furnished the medical evidence and Bashir Ahmad. SI (PW .10) who conducted the investigation of this case.
5. Dr. Allah Bakhsh (PW.3) conducted the medico legal examination of Ashiq Hussain on 16.04.2013 and noted the following injuries:--
1. Multiple bums on left arm, fore-arm and hand. There were corresponding burns on shirt also.
2. There were small burns on chest and abdomen on left side. There were corresponding burns on shirt also.
3.There were multiple small burns on left leg and foot. There were burns on Chadar also.
Lady Dr. Madiha Wasim (PW.8) conducted the medico legal examination of Shaista Bibi (victim) on 16.04.2013 at about 1 1:00 p.m. and noted the following injuries:--
1. Burn on right side of head (frontal area).
2. Right side of forehead,
3. Right side of face and chin.
4. Right side of nose,
5. Burn of right eye swelling all around eye, eyeball and cornea was opaque. Moreover she cannot see from right eye. She was referred to eye specialist for consultant opinion, 6,7 & 8 Burn on front side of neck and right side of neck, burn on back of right shoulder and back of chest. A single spot burn on left breast above nipple and single spot above right breast. Moreover under garments, had also corresponding burn. Single spot below right side of umbilicus.
9. Burn on right arm, fore-arm and hands (both anterior and posterior side).
10. Burn on left arm fore-arm and hands (both anterior and posterior .
11. Burn on right thing, knee and calf (antero medial and antero lateral) moreover burn on right foot and single spot of big toe.
12. Burn on left thigh, knee and calf antero lateral and antero medial and left foot also involved. Moreover all clothes have also corresponding burn marks.
According to Lady Doctor Madiha Wasim almost 40% body area involved in burn, nature of burn first and second degree, therefore Shaista Bibi. (victim) was referred to Nishter Hospital, Multan wherefrom the lady doctor received Ward Report (Exh.PF) which reads as under: "Shaista Bibi d/o Ashiq resident of Sinawan presented to Emergency Nishtar Hospital Multan on 17.4.2013 with r/o Chemical burn with Reg.No.56353. She was initially resuscitated by surgical unit on call and area involved was head, face, both arms and thighs. Her call to Ophthalmology Department was attended for right eye and they gave opinion of opaque cornea and limbic ischemia and advised eye drops and tablets. She was then shifted to Pak Italian Modern burn center on 17.4.201 3. Her burn area calculated was approximately 24 percent deep. Her condition explained to attendants and eye drops iv antibiotics Eye care and burn dressing started as treatment. Her surgery for debridement of eyelid and forehead and scalp wound and grafting done on 24.4.2013. She is still under treatment."
Dr. Naheed Ahmed (PW.9) deposed qua the Ward Report (Exh.PF). She also deposed that second surgery of Shaista Bibi (victim) was done on 08.05.2013 for debridement and drilling, whereas her third surgery was performed on 15.5.2013 for skin grafting on arms and neck and that all surger ies were carried out under his supervision.
6. The learned trial Court examined the appellant under Section 342, Cr.P.C. who in response to question "why this case has been made against you", made following reply: "I have been falsely implicated in this case by the Complainant in connivance of police due to suspicion on the asking of my enemies. I am innocent." Similarly , he while replying to question "Why the PWs deposed against you", took the following stance: "PWs have falsely deposed against me on the asking of complainant and my enemies".
The appellant neither made statement under Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. nor produced any witness in his defence.
After the completion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above, hence, the instant appeal.
7. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the incident in question occurred in the darkness of night and the witnesses had no source of light to identify the perpetrator; that due to the afore-mentioned reason the appellant was later implicated in the case merely on the basis of doubts and suspicion; that both the victims made contrasting statements in the Court, thus their testimony cannot be accepted; that the medical record is outcome of fabrication; that victim Shaista Bibi did not suffer any serious injury; that causing of injuries through acid burns remained unsubstantiated during trial as from the statements of doctors it reasonably evinces that they were uncertain about the substance used for causing traumas to the victims; that the presence of the appellant at the spot stands negated from the site-plan prepared by the police in which no point is highlighted to prove his presence and that since reasonable doubts emerge from the plain review of the record, henc e the conviction awarded to the appellant is liable to be set-aside.
8. On the other hand, learned law officer assisted by learned counsel for the Complainant vociferously argued that the case is arising out of a promptly lodged FIR in which the appellant is the sole person nominated as accused; that during trial the victim of the case and her father appeared to narrate the tale of occurrence and since they had no previous enmity with the appellant, hence their deposition is to be accepted; that not even a minute contradiction emerges from the record the benefit of which can be given to the appellant; that the brutality with which the crime in question was committed renders the appellant entitled to maximum punishment. With these submissions, it was urged that the conviction awarded to the appellant be upheld.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused.
10. A wade through the record reveals that the case in hand is arising out of an incident in which a young unmarried lady Shaista Bibi (PW.2) lost her charm from the acid burn injuries. The burden of committing this crime was pointed towards a sole accused who is none other than Farooq Shah, the appellant. The crime scene was situated in close proximity of Police Station Sinawan at a distance of 5- Furlon gs and no time was wasted in imparting its information to the police which was provided within fifteen minutes. The promptitude with which the tale of incident was conveyed to police excludes the possibility of some mistaken identification or the fabrication of facts.
11. The detail of incident was brought on record by Ashiq Hussain (PW. 1) and his daughter Shaista Bibi (PW.2).
Both of them suffered acid burn traumas during the incident. We have meticulously examined the deposition of both the witnesses and have noticed that they had no axe to grind with the appellant so as to falsely implicate him in this case and that too through the tool of substitution. Nothing as such is available on record from which it may allude that the witnesses were not having previous acquaintance with Farooq Shah (appe llant), thus it out-rightly discards the possibility of any mistaken identification. The receipt of acid burn injuries by both the witnesses proves their presence at the spot and makes them credible. Even after being confronted with questions during the cross- examination, both the witnesses remained firm and budged not a single inch from their stance of having fallen prey to the aggression of Farooq Shah (appellant). Despite having received multiple burn injuries, both the victims opted not to spread a wider net so as to implica te some other 'persons from the family of the appellant in the commission of crime and this fact reflects positively upon their credibility .
12. While dilating upon the deposition of Dr. Allah Bakhsh (PW.3), it divulged that Ashiq Hussain (injured) was in the receipt a multiple burns on left arm, fore-arm, hand, chest, abdomen, on left leg and foot. According to the doctor , the clothes of Ashiq Hussian (victim) were also haying burn marks thereupon. Thus, the probable duration of injuries noticed by the doctor also coincides with the time of occurrence mentioned in the FIR.
So far as Shaista Bibi (injured) is concern ed, initially she was medically examined by Lady Doctor Madiha Wasim (PW.8) at Rural Health Centre Sinawan, Muzaf fargarh. The perusal of medical report (Exh.PD) issued by Lady Doctor Madiha unveils that Shaista Bibi (victim) was having burn marks on frontal area of the head, face, chin, neck, right shoulder , breasts and her limbs with the corresponding marks on her clothes. Shaista Bibi was provided further medical treatment by Dr. Naheed Ahmad Incharge Burn Unit Nishtar Hospital, Multan, during which she underwent three surgeries pertaining to debridement of eyelid and skin grafting of arm and neck etc. It will not be an over-exaggeration to observe that the scrutiny of medical evidence besides providing support to the ocular account also depicts the brutality to which the appellant resorted at the eventful time.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly argued that since the doctors during their deposition before the Court stated that the injuries were caused probably due to the acid and as such the uncertain medical evidence is sufficient to oust the applicability of Section 336-B, PPC, the provisions with which the appellant was handed down a guilty verdict. Since such arguments of learned counsel are not in consonance with the provisions of Section 336- A & 336-B, hence hold no ground favourable to the appellant. In this regard, we have noticed that Section 336-B, PPC makes punishable the hurt caused by corrosive substance. So far as, the word "corrosive substance" is concerned, it is defined in explanation attached with Section 336-A, PPC which for reference sake is being reproduced hereunder: "336-A. Hurt caused by corrosive substance. Whoever with the intention or knowingly causes or attempts to cause hurt by means of a corrosive substance or any substance which is deleterious to human body when it is swallowed, inhaled, comes into contact or received into human body or otherwise shall be said to cause hurt by corrosive substance.
Explanation.--In this subsection, unless the context otherwise requires, "corrosive substance" means a substance which may destroy , cause hurt, deface or dismember any organ of the human body and includes every kind of acid, poison, explosive or explosive substance, heating substance, noxious thing, arsenic or any other chemical which has a corroding ef fect and which is deleterious to human body ."
It reasonably evinces from above that the "corrosive substance" is the word of wider interpretation and includes any substance which may destroy , cause hurt, deface or dismember any organ of the human body and includes every kind of acid, poison, explosive substanc e, heating substance, noxious thing, arsenic or any other chemical etc. Even otherwise, during investigation pieces of clothes were secured and forwarded to the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency , who vide his report (Exh.PK) opined that the same have acid burn marks.
14. Learned counsel further made an attempt to persuade us for acquittal of his client and drew our attention towards the rough site-plan (Exh.PG) wherein the presence of the appellant is not shown.
F Suffice it to say in this regard that the site-plan is not a substantive piece of evidence and the benefit of lacunas arising out of it can only be extended to an accused if proved that the site-plan was prepared on the pointation of the witnesses. Reference in this context can be made to the case reported as Javed Ishfaq v. The State (2020 SCMR 1414 ), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under: ".... site-plan has never been considered as a substantive piece of evidence nor any benefit may be extracted therefrom unless the witnesses are duly confronted with the purported anomaly or discrepancy therein; no such attempt has been undertaken by the defence."
On the question of non-preparation of site-plan at the pointing out of the witnesses, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Imran Ashraf and 7 others v . The State (2001 SCMR 424 ) observed as under: "On the question of non-preparation of a site-plan at the pointation of a witness this Court has held in the case of Gul Mir v. The State (PLD 1980 SC 185) that if it was not prepared on the pointa tion of a witness it will loose its evidentiary value."
In the case in hand, we have also gone through the deposition of both the victims i.e. Ashiq Hussain (PW.1) and Shaista Bibi (PW .2) bit by bit and noticed that none of them was confronted with the contents of the site-plan.
15. As regards, the conviction awarded to the appellant under Section 7(c) of Anti-T errorism Act, 1997, it is also not open to any exception as admittedly the injuries caused to the victim besides being grievous in nature also comes within the purview of item 4 (iv) of the third Schedule of the Act ibid.
16. From the features mentioned above, we have no hesitation in our minds that the prosecution successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond any shred of ambiguity . Needles to,mention here the appellant mutilated the youth and charm of Shaista Bibi (PW.2) blessed to her-by-Almig hty Allah and left her to live a miserable life in coming years. The mental trauma and physical agony suffered by both the - victims, more importantly Shaista Bibi (PW.2) can only be imagined by them and benefit of reduction in appellant's sentence will amount to rubbing salt into the wound. Resultantly , Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2013 filed by Farooq Shah (appellant) merits no acceptance and is accordingly dismissed.