ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. The appellant, namely Muhammad, son of Sakhidad, allegedly murdered Muhammad Ayaz at the house of Rehmatullah, situated at Bonstan, District Panjgur, by way of firing upon him within the precincts of Police Station City Panjgur at about 3:30 am on 23.09.2022. For the commission of the said offence, the appellant was booked in FIR No. 147/2022 and registered at the said Police Station on 23.09.2022 at 3:50 pm. After a regular trial, the appellant was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. as Ta'zir vide judgment dated 20.06.2023 ('the impugned judgment') passed by learned Sessions Judge Panjgur ('the trial court') in Murder Case No. 18 of 2022 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay compensation of Rs.100,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased Muhammad Ayaz, as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C in default of payment, the appellant was further directed to suffer S.I for three months with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment, the appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence through Criminal Appeal No. (T) 41 of 2023.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available records with their valuable assistance.
4. For the purpose of safe administration of justice, it is essentially required of the Court to satisfy itself whether the eye-witness is natural and his presence on the spot could reasonably be believed, and that whether the testimony is free from any kind of intrinsic improbabilities and in the case of an interested witness whether any corroboration is forthcoming.
5. The prosecution's case primarily rests on the ocular testimonies of Rahim Jan (PW-2), Rasool Jan (PW-7), and Rehmatullah (PW-8), who are the eye-witness of the occurrence. Abu Bakar (PW-3) and Mst. Parveen (PW-5) stated in their statement that they saw the appellant armed with a pistol near the place of occurrence. The complainant/ PW-1 who was informed by the eye-witnesses of the occurrence and he lodged the FIR.
6. All the above eye-witnesses stated in their statement that on 23.09.2022 at about 3:30 pm, they, along with the appellant were present in the house of Rehmatullah (PW-8). At that time; the appellant told the deceased, Muhammad Ayaz, to enter the password/code of his mobile phone, upon which the deceased entered the password of his mobile phone and handed over the same to the appellant. After checking the mobile phone, the appellant returned it to the deceased and went to the toilet. After two minutes, he came back having a pistol in his hand, and he fired upon the deceased Muhammad Ayaz, who received injuries and later on succumbed to injuries.
7. The complainant/PW-I stated in his statement that on 23.09.2022 at 3:30 pm, he was present in his house when he heard the noise of firing and ran toward the house of Rehmatullah where his nephews, Rahim Jan and Abu Bakar (the eye-witnesses) were carrying the deceased Muhammad Ayaz's body drenched in blood in a vehicle. The eye-witnesses told him that the appellant had made firing upon the deceased, and he received injuries. The complainant also reached the hospital, and there, on his written report, the FIR No. 147/2022 was registered on the same date at 3:50 p.m. at P.S. City Panjgur. The other witnesses, i.e., Abu Bakar (PW-3), and Mst. Parveen (PW-5) stated in their statement that they are neighbors of Rehmatullah (PW-8). They heard a firing noise, and at that time, they saw the accused who was armed with a pistol, in the house of PW-8. They further stated that they saw the deceased, Muhammad Ayaz, who received firearm injuries.
8. The FIR was lodged on the written report of the complainant/PW-1 Muhammad Tahir. The appellant is nominated in the FIR as an accused lodged by the complainant promptly. He has also been attributed the role of affective firing upon the deceased.
9. We have observed that all the above witnesses have given detailed accounts of the incident.
They were natural witnesses of the occurrence. PW-8 being an inmate of the house, whereas the above named witnesses being neighbors of PW-S, were supposed to be present there. Their presence in the house in the given circumstances cannot be doubted. The defense, despite lengthy cross examination, could not shatter their trustworthy evidence. Not a single suggestion has been made to the said PWs about sparing the real culprit and substituting him with the appellant. We scanned the evidence of the above witnesses but have not been able to find any previous enmity, or ill will attributed to the said witnesses. The defense has not challenged the time, the venue, and the manner of occurrence nor alleged any motive to rope in the appellant/accused in the case of capital punishment. Although the above PWs are near relatives of the deceased, but it has been settled by the superior courts that the mere relationship of the witnesses with the victim would not discard his/her evidence if it is otherwise confidence-inspiring and trustworthy.
10. It is stated earlier that a related witness cannot be termed as an interested witness under all circumstances. A related witness can also be a natural witness. If an offence is committed within the presence of family members, then they assume the position of natural witnesses. In the case in hand, the evidence of the above PWs is reliable, cogent, and clear; the prosecution case cannot be doubted. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any plausible reason as to why the above PWs have falsely involved the appellant in the present case and let of the real culprit, who has committed the murder of their near relative. Substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon. Even otherwise, the above PWs are also relatives of the appellant; how can it be possible that they falsely involved the appellant in the present case and let of the real culprit?
11. It may be observed that the medical evidence is in complete harmony with the ocular testimony of PW-1. PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-7, and PW-8, and no conflict could be pointed out to create a dent in the prosecution case. Dr. Anwar Aziz, Medical Officer DHQ Hospital Panjgur (PW-4) produced the medical certificate of the deceased Muhammad Ayaz (Ex.P/4-A), according to which the deceased received injuries by means of firearms. Besides, the medical evidence also supported the prosecution version.
12. We have observed that besides the crime empties, which were taken into possession from the place of occurrence, the weapon of offence, i.e., a 9mm pistol, was also recovered on disclosure and pointation of the appellant. Both the crime empties and crime weapon, i.e., a 9mm pistol, were sent to the firearms expert. The Investigation Officer obtained a positive reports (Ex. P/11-G and Ex.P/11-H), according to which the crime empties in Parcel No.2 have been fired from a 9mm bore pistol present in Parcel No. 1. Blood-stained earth, blood-stained clothes of the deceased were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and in this regard, the report is positive, which is available on record as Ex.P/11-J. The recovery witnesses have also been subjected to cross- examination by the defense, but nothing favorable to the appellant or adverse to the prosecution could be brought on record.
13. Pursuant to the above, we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case beyond the shadow of a doubt, and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is based on correct appreciation of evidence, which does not call for interference; therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence is maintained, in result whereof Criminal Appeal No. (T) 41 of 2023 is dismissed accordingly.