RASHID AZIZ KHANJ.-Muhammad Nazir son of Fateh Muhammad (25) was sent up by Police Station Katha Saghral, District Khushab, for trial for an offence under section 302 PPC for the murder of Ghulam Shabhir. Sessions Judge, Khushab, vide his judgment dated 11.2.1987 convicted and sentenced him under section 302 PPC to death and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, or in default two years R.I. It was further directed that the fine, if recovered, the whole of it shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The convict has appealed. The case is also before us for the confirmation of death sentence. The complainant has filed a Revision seeking enhancement in the compensation. All these matters will be disposed of by this judgment.
2. The prosecution story in brief, as disclosed in FIR Exh.PD, lodged by Allah Ditta, PW-7, was to the effect that he was resident of village Padhrar. His brother's son Ghulam Shabhir used to work in Pakistan Printing Press at Karachi, who had come on 1h months leave. Said Ghulam Shabbir's leave was to expire on 13.9.1985, and he was to leave for Karachi on 13.9.1985. On 9.9.1985 in the morning, the first informant and Ghulam Shabhir went to attend the marriage ceremony of the sons of one Sher Muhin mad in village Padhrar. At about 5 p.m, the same day, the first informant with his nephew Ghulam Shabhir, and Allah Ditta son of Muhammad Khan, and Ghulam Jilani were coming back after attending the marriage. At about 6 p.m, when they reached near their Dhoke, Muhammad Nazir (appellant) came in front of his nephew Ghulam Shabhir who was walking ahead of them, from behind a room in which water-pump had been installed. Muhammad Nazir was armed with a 32 bore revolver. He raised a lalkara, and while coming very near to Ghulam Shabhir, fired hitting on his chest. Ghulam Shabhir fell down, whereupon Muhammad Nazir fired another shot hitting on the left temple. The first informant with Allah Ditta and Ghulam Jillani tried to intervene but were threatened by Muhammad Nazir with dire consequences. Since they were empty handed, therefore, out of fear they did not come near him.
After the occurrence, Muhammad Nazir ran away from the spot with his revolver. Ghulam Shabhir died at the spot because of the said injuries. The motive, as given in the FIR, was that Ghulam Shabhir was engaged to Mst. Munawaran, daughter of Maula Bakhsh, brother of Muhammad Nazir, accused. Muhammad Nazir did not accept the said engagement, therefore, on 6.9.1985 Muhammad Nazir had threatened Ghulam Shabhir to break the engagement whereupon both of them had exchanged hot words as well. Ghulam Shabhir had refused to break the engagement.
The occurrence had taken place on 9.9.1985 at 6 P.m. Within the area of village Padhrar near the Dhoke of the complainant. It was 6 miles from Police Station Katha Saghral. FIR Exh. PD was lodged by Allah Ditta PW-7, at the police station. It was recorded by Ghulam Ali, Si/,SHQ, PW-11 on 9.9.1985 at 9:15 p.m.
3. Dr. Muhammad Rahim Piracha, Senior Medical Officer, PW-1, conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Ghulam Shabhir on 10.9.1985 at 9.a.m. And found the following mjuries:-
1. A firearm wound on the front of the chest 1.5cm radious, 3cm below manubrium sterin with area of blackening 4 x 4cm around it.
2. A firearm wound at the left check (zygomatic) bone 4cm in front of left bone 1.5cm radious margin inverd.
In his opinion the death had occurred because of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries Nos.1 and
2. Both the injuries were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries Were antemortem.
4. Ghulam Ali, SI/SHO, PW-11, after recording the FIR Exh.PD came to the spot and prepared injury statement Exh.PG, and inquest report Exh.PH of the deceased, and then sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He secured Blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo Exh.PE.
Thereafter he was transferred and the investigation was taken over by Muhammad Aslam, SI, PW-
10. He arrested the appellant on 20.9.1985, and on the same day got recovered revolver P.7 from his residential Koiha. Two empties P.8/1-2 and four live cartridges P.9/1-4 were found inside the chamber of the revolver, which were taken into possession vide memo Exh.PF, and got the said memo attested from the witnesses. Since the appellant did not have any licence, therefore, he registered a case under Arms ordinance as well. He got prepared site-plan Exh.PC and PC/1 and gave his notes in red ink thereunder. After completion of the investigation, he challaned the accused.
5. The prosecution in support of its case produced eleven witnesses in all. Dr. Muhammad Rahim Piracha, PW-1, had conducted the postmortem examination. Khuda Bakhsh, FC,PW-3, had escorted the dead body to the mortuary, and after postmortem examination had produced the last worn clothes of the deceased before the investigating officer. Ghaus Muhammad, FC,PW-4, had accompanied Khuda Bakhsh, PW, to the mortuary with the deadbody. Khaliq Dad, Patwari, PW-6 had prepared the site-plan Exh.PC and Exh.PC/1. The ocular account was furnished by Allah Ditta son of Mian Abdullah, and Allah Ditta son of Muhammad Khan, PWs-7 and 8, respectively.
Muhammad Parvaiz PW-9 had witnessed the recovery of revolver p.7 at the instance of the appellant. The case was investigated by Muhammad Aslam, SI, and Ghulam Ali, SI, PWs-10 and 11, respectively.
At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C., wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question, he stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case because of political rivalry. He, however, did not chose to appear in his defence as a witness nor led any defence evidence.
6. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there was unexplained delay of three hours in the registration of the case, which made the prosecution case doubtful. Argued that the occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of night when no eye-witness was present. The eye- witnesses were sent for, and thereafter they got the case registered. Therefore, it was a case of acquittal. Argued that the prosecution allegation was that the appellant had fired with a revolver yet the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination, found two pellets in the body, which negated the entire prosecution case. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State. According to the State counsel, the occurrence had taken place at 6 p.m. And the FIR was got registered at the police station at 9:15.p.m. the distance between the two places was I6 miles, therefore, there was no delay in the registration of the case. Submitted that the eye-witnesses have given a plausible explanation about their presence at the spot, and in the absence of any enmity can safely be relied upon.
7. We have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with his assistance.
The prosecution in order to establish its case relied upon the ocular account corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of firearm at the instance of the appellant. The ocular account has been furnished by Allah Ditta son of Mian Abdullah, and Allah Ditta son of Muhammad Khan, PWs-7 and 8, respectively. Allah Ditta PW-7 stated that the appellant was his paternal cousin whereas the deceased was his nephew. He corroborated the version given by him in the FIR. He had stated that while they were coming back after attending the marriage ceremony of the sons of one Sher Muhammad, they were surprised by the appellant who emerged from behind a room of water-pump. Ghulam Shabhir at that time was at a few paces walking ahead of them. The appellant came near Ghulam Shabhir and fired with his revolver. He had also given motive for the occurrence by stating that Ghulam Shabhir, deceased was engaged to one Mst. Munawaran, daughter of Maula Bakhsh, brother of the appellant. The appellant was not happy with the engagement as he wanted said Mst. Munawara to be engaged with one Munawar Khan. The witness had been cross-examined at length. In cross-examination he had also stated that there was a well near the spot but no body was present there at that time. He denied the suggestion that the dead body was found in the early hours of the morning, and thereafter they became false witnesses. We have noticed that this witness was not given even a suggestion that he had some motive for the false involvement of the appellant. No ill-will has been attributed to him. The narration given by the witness is convincing and rings true. He was a close relative of the deceased as well as of the appellant. The defence has not pointed out any enmity to him. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that he is a truthful witness who was present at the spot and can safely be relied upon.
Allah Ditta son of Muhammad Khan, PW-8, corroborated the statement of Allah Ditta son of Mian Abdullah, PW-7. According to this witness, he was accompanying the deceased while coming back after attending a marriage ceremony. After the occurrence he stayed at the spot while Allah Ditta son of Mian Abdullah went to the Police Station to lodge the case. The witness was cross-examined at length. It was not challenged that he had not gone to attend the marriage ceremony with the deceased and other PWs. He withstood lengthy cross- examination without giving the impression that he was not present or had not seen the occurrence. We have not been able to find out any enmity or motive on the part of this witness for the false involvement of the appellant. The reason given by this witness for his presence at the spot is convincing and has gone unchallenged. In these circumstances, we hold that he is a truthful witness and can safely be relied upon.
The doctor who conducted the postmortem examination, found two bullet injuries. The injuries had blackening around them as well. This fact strongly corroborates the ocular account, according to which the appellant had fired after coming very close to the deceased.
As far as the recovery of revolver at the instance of the appellant is concerned, it is ruled out of consideration for the simple reason that it was not sent to the Firearm Expert for comparison with the empties. We also rule out of consideration the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that two pellets were recovered from the dead body, whereas the allegation was that the deceased was fired at with a revolver therefore the prosecution case had become doubtful. We had sent for the sealed phial and after looking at the same, it was clear that they were not pellets but were bullets; learned counsel for the appellant also had to concede to that. We have examined the case from all angles but could not find anything which could be used as a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of sentence.
The revision of the complainant seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation is without force, there is nothing on the record to indicate that the appellant was a man of means and could pay more than Rs.10,000/-, which has been ordered to be paid as compensation. Even otherwise also, we feel Rs.10,000/- as compensation is a substantial amount. Therefore, the revision fails which is also dismissed.
For what has been discussed above, we hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The death sentence is confirmed.