ALI BAIG, CJ.---The appellant/convict namely Muhammad Razi alias Muhammad Khalil through the instant criminal appeal filed under Section 410, Cr.P.C., seeks his acquittal from the charges under section 302, P.P.C. and 13 Arms Ordinance, 1965 by setting aside the impugned judgments dated 27.03.2021 passed by the learned Juvenile Court/Sessions Judge,. Ghizer in Sessions Cases Nos.39/2017 and 40/2017, whereby the learned trial Judge has sentenced the appellant/convict imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C. being juvenile, for committing Qatl-e-Amd of one Anwar Hussain. The appellant/convict is also sentenced under section 13 Arms Ordinance, 1965 for six months simple imprisonment, however, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., was extended to the appellant/convict in both cases by the trial Court.
2. Brief facts of the case have been summed up by the learned trial Judge in the opening para of his judgment dated 27.03.2021, which are reproduced as under: "The brief facts giving rise to the instant criminal case are that FIR lodger Syed Sultan Hussain son of Garoo Khan Resident of Bathi Bathrate Tehsil Gupis District Ghizer reported to police check post Hamaran Bathrate on 21.07.2017 at about 11.30 am, that accused Muhammad Razi (alias)
Muhammad Khalil son of Syed Wali Bathi Bathrate Tehsil Gupis District Ghizer had murdered his real brother Anwar Hussain at Bathi Bathrate by opening fires on him with pistol"
3. On murasila of ASI Essa Khan, Incharge Police Check Post Hamaran Bathrate, the SHO of PS Gupis registered FIR No. 16/2017 (Exh.PW-10/A) under section 302, P.P.C. against the present appellant/convict. On 24.07.2017, during investigation of the main case, police recovered crime weapon i.e. 30 bore pistols on pointation of appellant from a room of his house, whereupon another FIR No.17/2017 under section 13. A.O 1965 got registered against the appellant at PS Gupis. After completion of investigation the 1.0 submitted incomplete challan/final police report in both the cases against the above named juvenile appellant in the trial Court.
4. On receipt of challan the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant/accused on 23-10-2017, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed proper trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 10 witnesses and closed its evidence. After closing of evidence, accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., on 24.09.2020, wherein he professed to be innocent. He opted to record his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., and adduced two witnesses in his defence.
5. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both sides, convicted the appellant/convict in both cases as stated hereinabove, vide impugned judgments dated 27.03.2021 passed in Sessions Cases Nos. 39/2017 and 40/2017.
6. The convict/appellant feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned judgments/orders and sentences awarded him by the learned trial Court has filed the instant criminal appeal before this Court for his acquittal from all charges.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/convict submitted that the case of prosecution is highly doubtful, but the learned trial Court has illegally convicted and awarded sentences to the appellant/convict, therefore, the impugned judgments are against the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The learned counsel for the appellant/convict further argued that the impugned judgments are result of wrong conclusion, misreading and non-reading of evidence available on record. The learned counsel for the. appellant/convict while continuing his arguments submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate its version and contents of FIR through any independent reliable and corroborative piece of evidence, but the learned trial Judge has passed the impugned judgments on the basis of self-made presumptions. The learned counsel for the appellant/convict further argued that prosecution has badly failed to prove the allegations leveled against the appellant/convict. The prosecution evidence is not worth credence and believable, but the learned trial Court has misread evidence and based its judgments on flimsy grounds. The learned counsel for the appellant/convict further contended that the trial Court has made wrong appraisal of evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant/convict further submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously relied totally on the depositions of highly interested and related witnesses, despite the fact that independent witnesses were available on the scene of occurrence and were cited in the calendar of witnesses but they were not examined.
The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the quantity of evidence has been considered by the learned trial Court instead of qualitative worth which is against the safe dispensation of criminal justice. The learned counsel for the appellant/convict further argued that the recovered weapon of offence i.e. 30 bore pistol was not functional one and the FSL report is contradictory, hence the impugned judgments are not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant/convict submitted that the I.0 of the case has released two other accused namely Aisar Ahmed and Akbar Wali during investigation, hence the appellant/convict also entitled for same relief by acquitting him from all the charges to meet the ends of justice.
8. Conversely, the learned Dy. Advocate General and counsel for the complainant opposed this criminal appeal with force and supported the impugned judgments/convictions passed by the trial Court by contending that the appellant/ convict is directly nominated in the FIR with specific role of effective firing at the deceased. The learned Dy. Advocate General and learned counsel for the complainant further contended that all the PWs are reliable and trustworthy and are in line with each other. They further argued that prosecution has established its case beyond any shadow of doubt and every piece of evidence connects the appellant/convict with the commission of offence.
The learned Dy. Advocate General and learned counsel for the complainant further argued that prosecution has collected/accumulated enough evidence, which is sufficient to convict the appellant/convict. The learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the complainant further, submitted that postmortem report and FSL reports support the contents of FIR. The recovery of crime weapon has been effected on the pointation of present appellant/convict in presence of marginal witnesses. The learned Dy. Advocate General and learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the statements of appellant/convict under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., and the two defence witnesses are not reliable being contradictory with each another. With these submissions, the learned Dy. Advocate General and learned counsel for the complainant requested that the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant/ convict vide the impugned judgments, which may be maintained to meet the ends of justice.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at considerable length and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.
10. After minutely perusal of the entire evidence and attending submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties we find that case of the prosecution mainly depends on ocular account/evidence of PW-3 namely Doulat Amin son of Mohammad Rahim Khan, PW No.4 namely Hukum Khan son of Mohammad Karim Khan and PW No.5 namely Mohammad Rahim son of Syed Rahim Khan. Names of eyewitnesses namely Hukum Khan and Mohammad Rahim have been disclosed in the promptly lodged FIR. The convict /appellant has also been directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role of effective firing on the deceased. The ocular account/ evidence is also corroborated by circumstantial evidence against the appellant/convict in the form recoveries of weapon of offence, empty shells, blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and medical evidence.
Eye Witnesses/Ocular evidence.
11. The most important piece of evidence in this case is statements of eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely Doulat Amin (PW-3), Hukum Khan (PW-4) and Mohammad Rahim (PW-5). For ease and convenience we would like to reproduce statements/ examination in chief of above named eyewitnesses as under:- "PW-3 Doulat Amin son of Muhammad Rahim Khan Stated the on 21.07.2017 at about 11:00 am the Nikah ceremony of my real brother namely Daulat Karim was in progress at the house of one Muhammad Khan whose daughter was being married with my brother. I along with one Sher Hussain was proceeding from the said house of Muhammad Khan to my own house. When we reached near the house of one Tala we saw the accused present in the court namely Muhammad Razi was present along with deceased Anwar Hussain at the field of Ahmed Khan. Meanwhile, the present accused opened fire at the deceased and murdered him., When we attempted to get near to the accused, he aimed pistol at us. Due to such threat of pistol we could not apprehend him. The accused fled from the scene of occurrence towards his own house. Meanwhile PWs namely Daulat Karim, Shah Alam and Hukum Khan also came to the place of occurrence. I along with said PWs recited Kalmaat deceased Anwar Hussain who was succumbing his last breath. One day prior to the occurrence, the deceased had told me that accused Muhammad Razi, Amir Wali and Issa Rehmat had threatened him saying that you have friendship with one Abdul Hamid. You must sever friendship with him, otherwise they will kill him. That is my statement.
PW-4. Hukum Khan son of Muhammad Karim Khan Stated the on 21.07.2017 at about 11:00 am the accused present in the court namely Muhammad Razi and deceased namely Anwar Hussain were sitting at the corner of the field of one Ahmed Khan. I was standing beside the house of said Ahmed Khan. Meanwhile firing started and deceased Anwar Hussain fell down on the ground while accused fled towards his home holding a pistol in his hand. Soon thereafter the people gathered in the marriage ceremony gathered at the place of occurrence and recited Kalma at the deceased who breathed his last. The deceased namely Anwar Hussain had told me earlier that Amir Wali, Issar Ahmed and Muhammad Razi have threatened him to kill him if he did not stop his friendship with Abdul Hamid son of Qamdar. That is my statement."
"PW-5. Mohammad Rahim son of Syed Rahim Khan.
Stated that on the day of occurrence I was going to the house of Muhammad Khan. On my way I saw the accused present in court and the deceased namely Anwar Hussain were sitting. When I arrived at the door of Muhammad Khan, I heard sounds of gun shots. When I returned back, I saw the accused present in the court was holding a pistol and he fired the last shot at the deceased.
Thereafter the accused fled to his house waving the pistol in his hand. When I arrived at the place of where the deceased were laying he was alive. I also recited Kalama at him and he succumbed his last. Among the people arrived the said deceased were Janat Molvi, Shah Alam, and Doulat Karim and recited Kalma at him. The said occurrence had taken place on 21-07-2017 at 11:00 am.
This my statement".
12. We have carefully examined the statements of above-named eyewitnesses/Pws. Names of eyewitnesses Humkam Khan and A Mohammad Rahim are appearing in the promptly lodged FIR.
After meticulously examination of statements of the above-named eyewitnesses we find that they are natural witnesses and "discrepancies in their statements are very minor. Presence of the above-named eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence was established. The above-named eyewitnesses being natural witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined by the defence counsel but their statements could not be shattered by defence counsel. Although eyewitnesses are related the deceased but the relationship with the deceased is no ground for discarding their evidence as relationship with the deceased does not make a witness interested one and testimony of such witness who otherwise seemed to be truthful witness cannot be rejected on the said ground if he has no reasons to falsely implicate the accused/appellant in the commission of offence. In this connection reference is made to the reported judgments of Superior Courts; (1)
2004 PCr.LJ 1292 (2) 2004 MLD 1765, (3) 2008 SCMR 1527.
13. Before seeking further corroboration, we must say that in the instant case the conviction can be based on the sole statements of the above-named eyewitnesses who have faithfully deposed against the appellant/convict Mohammad Razi (alias) Mohammad Khalil what was seen by them and despite lengthy cross examination by defence counsel. However, their version is further corroborated /supported by recovery of weapon of offence i.e. 30 bore Pistol on the pointation of appellant/corrvict in presence of marginal witnesses, blood stained earth, empty shells of 30 bore pistol from the place of occurrence and positive report of Fire Arms expert.
Medical Evidence.
14. The medical account on record has been furnished by the statement of Dr. Sonia Fatima Medical Officer Civil Hospital Gupis Exh.P-2/A who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased which also supports the prosecution version. Autopsy report is reproduced as follows:- "POSTMORTEM REPORT Name Anwar Hussain Father Name Gudoo Khan Resident of Village Bathrate Age 16 year Date of postmortem21st July 2017 Dead body brought by SI/SHO Thana Gupis 5:00 PM GENERAL EXAMINATION A young boy of approximately 16th years of age. Blood stained clothes, tears were found on multiple areas, anteriorly and posteriorly.
Rigor Mortis developed, maggots were not found. All the orifices were intact.
Wounds.
Entrance wound Left upper chest injury was of small size likely bullet penetration was slightly blackish.
Left lower back on thoracic area was a small bullet wound. One bullet wound was on the upper third of left leg.
Another small bullet wound was on the leg below the first leg wound.
Another wound on the posterior lateral side of the Middle leg.
One small wound was found on the right upper third of posterior thigh.
Exit Wounds.
On the right lower chest was found an exit wound.
Another wound was on the upper chest left anterior to left clavicle.
The superficial wounds of the upper third of left leg were found on upper third Another wound was on the medio-posterior side of the left leg.
On the posterior medial side of the upper thigh were found another wound.
Cardio Vascular System.
The chest interiorly was damaged (lungs). Blood was oozing from the wounds.
Abdomen.
NAD (No abnormality detected)
Head.
NAD (No abnormality detected)
Observation In my opinion the observation made during the postmortem examination the deceased has died as a result of excessive bleeding due to bullet injuries.
Sd/ Dr, Sonia Fatima Civil Hospital Gupis Dated 22nd July 2017 Time:- 12:00 PM"
15. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appellant/convict has also got recorded his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied allegation of murder of deceased stating that at the time of occurrence he was at his home with some guests and have also produced two DWs in his defence who have also narrated the same story/version of convict/appellant But their statements are not reliable/trustworthy and not confidence inspiring.
16. In view of above, we are of the firmed view that prosecution though ocular evidence, medical evidence, recovery of weapon of offence on the pointation of appellant/convict and other incriminating materials has successfully brought home the charge against the appellant/ convict.
Accordingly, the learned trial Court has righty awarded sentence of life imprisonment to the appellant/convict vide the impugned judgment under appeal.
17. As a sequel to the discussion made above, we End no reason whatsoever to interfere in the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court in this case. However, keeping in view juvenility/minority of the convict/appellant sentence of imprisonment is converted/reduced from life imprisonment to 14 years R.I.
18. With the above slight modification in the impugned judgment of learned trial. Court dated 27.03.2021 passed in Case FIR No.16/2017 registered under section 302, P.P.C., at Police Station Gupis, the same is maintained. The judgment/order dated 27.03.2021 passed by the learned trial Court in Case No. FIR No.17/2017 registered under section 13 Arms Ordinance 1965 at Police Station Gupis is also maintained. This criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly. File.