ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---This appeal by the leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 25-6-1989.
2. The facts, in brief, are that according to the prosecution case, on 12-8-1983 at about 5-30 p.m., the complainant Hussain Shah was present in his house situate at Dehra Syedan Dakhli Poothi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mandra. He sent his son Ghulam Abbas Shah (deceased) aged about 23 years to the field to cut grass for the bullocks. According to the F.I.R. And the complaint, Hussain Shah also followed his deceased son, Ghulam Abbas Shah, who had hardly gone 8/10 paces out of his house when the complainant saw the appellants armed with "chhuris".
Liaqat Hussain appellant raised a Lalkara upon which the deceased turned towards his house; but the latter inflicted a chhuri blow on the back of the former who fell down. Ashiq Hussain Shah appellant also gave a chhuri blow on the left buttock of the deceased, Liaqat Hussain Shah wanted to inflict another blow on the deceased but the complainant intervened who also received an injury on his left hand. The deceased in injured condition was being taken to the hospital but he died on the way. The occurrence was witnessed by Ashraf Shah, Ikrar Shah and Mst. Chandni Bi. It was also stated in the F.I.R. That the appellants launched the murderous attack on the deceased at the instance and instigation of Noor Hussain Shah, Akhtar Hussain Shah and Walayat Ali (acquitted accused) and this was stated to the complainant after the occurrence, by Riaz Hussain Shah and his wife Mst. Sughra, PWs., who informed him that they were working in their fields when they heard saying the acquitted accused to the present appellants that the deceased be put to death as he was a danger for their lives and honour.
3. The motive for the occurrence as furnished by the complainant is that in the year 1978, his son Nazam Shah was murdered by Mehboob Shah and Shahzad Shah and afterwards his son-in-law, Bashir Shah and Nazir Hussain (brother of Bashir Shah) were also murdered in which case Akhtar Hussain Shah; Noor Hussain Shah (acquitted accused) alongwith Arab Shah and Lal Shah were the accused persons. It is also stated that Mst. Talmeez Zohra, sister-in-law of Ashiq Hussain Shah accused, got registered a case against Ghulam Abbas Shah, deceased, under section 11/18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, which was pending in the Court at Rawalpindi.
4. The occurrence took place on 12-8-1983 at about 5.30 P.M. The First Information Report was lodged by Hussain Shah (PW.1), father of the deceased. Ashiq Hussain Shah was arrested on 13-8- 1983 and Liaqat Hussain Shah was arrested on 12-8-1983. Ashiq Hussain Shah produced a chhuri on 21-8-1983 Which was not blood-stained. A blood-stained hhuri was also recovered from Zamir Hussain Shah on the same day. Five accused were tried by the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, who acquitted Noor Hussain Shah, Akhtar Hussain Shah and Walayat Ali Shah but convicted Liaqat Hussain Shah and Ashiq Hussain Shah under section 302/34 P.P.C. To life imprisonment each or in default in the payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. For two years each. The appeal against the said conviction was dismissed by the High Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Liaqat Hussain Shah was found innocent by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Undue weight cannot be given to the report of the Investigating Officer. It is for the Court to assess evidence and determine innocence or guilt of the accused. The three eye-witnesses have implicated Liaqat Hussain Shah and specific role has been attributed to him.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that the plea of alibi raised by Liaqat Hussain was not properly considered. According to Liaqat Hussain, he was at Mandra Bus Stand. He saw the complainant party standing with the police. Mushtaq Shah PW talked to Ghulam Shah S.I. Who called him. The S.I. Told him that a fight took place in the village. He (Liaqat Hussain) showed his ignorance about the said fight but the S.I. Brought him to the police station. This defence plea was not put to the prosecution witnesses. Mere oral statement of Liaqat Hussain not supported by any documentary or circumstantial evidence does not absolve him of the criminal liability. PW.2 real brother of the acquitted accused Noor Hussain and a relation of Liaqat Hussain has also implicated him. He injured the deceased. Liaqat Hussain was known to the P.Ws. Prior to the deceased. There is no question of wrong identity of the accused as such this contention has no force.
7. The learned counsel next contended that Mst. Talmeez Zohra had been abducted by the deceased and a case under section 11/18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, was pending against. The deceased and 13-8-1983 was the date fixed for announcement of the judgment. The deceased apprehending that he would be convicted tried to abduct Mst. Talmeez Zohra. In order to save the honour of Mst. Talmeez Zohra, Zamir Hussain Shah snatched the chhuri from Basharat accused in abduction case and inflicted injury on the deceased and a case of abduction was registered. This statement of the accused is not supported by evidence. The case of abduction filed by the complainant was dismissed by the trial Court after holding the same to be false. The said case was lodged after 2-1/2-years. According to the defence, the incident had occurred at the well where the deceased alongwith his companions had tried to abduct Mst. Talmeez Zohra. This fact is not supported by any evidence. Blood-stained earth was not secured from that place. Zamir Hussain Shah had received only contusion and abrasion.
The witnesses were natural witnesses and in their presence, the two appellants had caused injuries to the deceased.
8. It was next contended that the acquittal of the co-accused made the case of the prosecution doubtful. This plea was also raised before the High Court and it was rejected for good reasons. The appellants had caused injuries to the deceased and the complainant. Their case is distinguishable from that of the acquitted accused.
9. It was next contended that the injuries received by Mst. Talmeez, Zamir Hussain and Ashiq Hussain have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. All omissions are not contradictions. The prosecution case cannot be rejected simply on the ground that there are some omissions in the F.I.R. P.W.2 Ikrar Hussain in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Has specifically stated that he alongwith Ashraf Hussain Shah and Chandni Bi P.Ws. Pelted stones on the accused persons.
The complainant Hussain Shah in his statement at the trial has also stated that they had pelted stones at the accused. The presence of P.Ws. Is not disputed.
10. The learned counsel next contended that there was enmity between the parties. The prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses, therefore, the statement of the witnesses be considered with caution. This contention has no force. According to the complainant, the accused party had committed a number of murders of the complainant family. The prosecution 'witnesses have fully implicated the appellants. The two Courts have assessed the evidence and rightly convicted the appellants. In spite of lengthy irrelevant cross-examination, nothing was brought on record so as to discredit the testimony of these witnesses. We may point out that the purpose of cross-examination is to elicit the truth from witnesses and test the veracity of their evidence.
Purposeless and unnecessary cross-examination has been conducted by the defence counsel in this case. The trial Court instead of regulating the Court proceedings, allowed the lengthy cross- examination to the counsel which was sheer wastage of public time.
11. It was .Next contended that in fact Zamir Hussain Shah had killed the deceased. This contention would contradict appellants' own stand that due to enmity the accused persons have been implicated. The false implication of an accused has to be ruled out of consideration as no father would substitute an innocent person as killer of his son in place of the real culprit. The complainant had not named Zamir Hussain as one of the culprits. No injury was attributed to him by the prosecution witnesses. It is a rare phenomena that the real culprit is let off by the complainant party and in his place an innocent person is implicated.
12. The case against the appellants stands fully proved. There is no force in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.