ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner has moved this application seeking review of the order of this Court dated 21-3-1990 passed in Criminal Petition No.145-R of 1989.
2. The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court under section 302, P.P.C. Etc. His appeal before the High Court was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused by this Court on 21-3-1990.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are two typing mistakes in para.2 of the judgment. The deceased Asma was mentioned as Azra and Haji Ghulam Muhammad Soomro has been mentioned as Ghulam Sarwar. These are only typographical mistakes and they are corrected accordingly.
4. The learned counsel next submitted that there are certain errors which are apparent on record and such errors have resulted into miscarriage of justice and the finding on such errors needs re- examination by this Court. He has referred to the first error, that while mentioning the facts, it has been stated that "the complainant himself saw the car speedily taking turn in the street". The learned counsel submitted that such statement was not made by the complainant at the trial. He referred to the statement made in Court wherein the complainant stated that "my father's dead body was lying. Many including Syed Sibt-e-Hassan on query told us that they had seen white Charade car coming from the side of my house with high speed". .
5. The statement of the complainant is to be read in the light of the statement of P.W. 4 Saiful Islam who deposed that:-- "On coming out of the house I observed a white car running with a very high speed in a zig-zag manner. I tried to chase that car but I heard two fire-arm reports from inside the car". (Page 194 of the High Court's Paper Book): Though, while giving the facts, the name of the complainant has been mentioned but the fact remains that the P.W. Had seen the white car. Such narration of facts has not prejudiced the case of the petitioner. The facts have been mentioned which are not incorrect. Therefore, it may be read that instead of complainant P.W. 4 saw the white car.
6. The next error pointed out by the learned counsel is that recovery of white Charade car from the petitioner cannot be taken as a piece of evidence against the petitioner. This contention is devoid of force. It was the allegation that the car was used in the commission of the offence. The petitioner has not denied that the car in question was registered in the name of his wife. The seat covers and mats inside the car were found stained with blood. There were two holes; one in the roof of the car and the other on the back of the rear seat of the car. The broken pieces of bangles, one black Moti and pieces of glass of spectacles were also found in the car. The prosecution witness Sabir has specifically mentioned that the accused had brought the car for repair of the hole made in the car.
In view of the above facts, the recovery of car of the petitioner was a valid piece of evidence against him.
7. The next error pointed out by the learned counsel is that "the Moti which was missing from the Bund given by the doctor after the post-mortem was found from the car". There is no error as this fact is supported by the evidence. P.W.21 Dr. Amanullah, who performed the post-mortem on the dead bodies of the deceased has deposed as hereunder:-- .
"I had in all secured four ear-rings from both the dead bodies. None of the ear rings was broken.
Now one piece of one pair of ear-rings is not complete as the same is broken because one black Moti is missing from the article W.2." (P. 315 ibid).
Azra Abbasi (P.W. 26) had deposed that;-- "Salma was putting on bundas/ear-rings of Kala motis." (Page 371).
It, therefore, cannot be said that there is any error on this point.
8. The next error pointed out by the learned counsel is about the recovery of pieces of bangles from the place where the dead bodies had been recovered.
9. Maqbool Asif Bajwa'(P.W. 27), Investigation Officer had sent 19 articles to the Chemical Examiner vide Ex. 82 as deposed by him in his statement. According to his letter, the articles recovered from the place of incident and Jinnah Hospital included broken bangles which were also despatched for the report of the Chemical Examiner. This witness had not been confronted that the bangles had not been recovered from the place where the dead bodies had been found (pp. 391-422).
10. Mst. Jamila (P.W.11) cousin of the deceased, had deposed that:-- "I identified the bangles of the deceased in the identification test." (pp. 248-249).
Her statement was corroborated by P.W. 26 Azra Abbasi. She deposed that:-- "I see article `K'. These are the pieces of bangles which were in the hands of Asma and Salina when they had left Al-Imran Hall. I had identified the same to be of Asma and Salma before Magistrate ...Pieces of bangles now lying as the case property in this honourable Court. These are the same which had been identified by me on 8-2-1987 before the Magistrate to be the same which were on the body of Asma and Salina at the time whet they had left the marriage hall". (P. 372). There is no error.
11. The next error pointed out is that this Court has recorded that:-- "In the opinion of the doctor the death was the result of fire-arm injury and rape was also committed on the girls."
12. The learned counsel also submitted that the observations of this Court that rape was also committed on the girls, are against the record. He stated that according to the report of the Chemical Analyser no rape had been committed. This contention has no force.
13. Dr. Amanullah (P.W. 21) who performed the post-mortem of the dead body of Salma Jabeen, came to the conclusion that:-- "Death appeared to be the result of some fire-arm injury. Rape was also committed to her (ante- mortem)." (page 306).
14. The same doctor also performed the post-mortem of the dead body of Asma Jabeen and he came to the following conclusion:-- "Hymen was freshly torn (ante-mortem)." (P. 309).
It, therefore, cannot be said that the finding of this Court is against the record. The statement of the doctor is quite clear and preference cannot be given to the report of the Chemical Analyser.
15. The next error pointed out by the learned counsel is that in the facts it has been stated that "the petitioner was arrested on 31-1-1987 but in this Court's order it has been mentioned that he was arrested on 30-1-1987. He has referred to the memo of warrant Ex. 11 wherein it has been stated that Shaukat Hayat was arrested on the doubt of murder but no date is mentioned in this memo. The learned counsel has referred to the date i.e., 28-11-1986 which is about the case number. According to Maqbool Asif Bajwa, Investigating Officer (P.W. 27), the investigation of the case was transferred to C.I.A. On 30-1-1987. (P. 390). He has not stated that the accused was arrested on 30-1-1987. The date 30-1-1987 mentioned in para.2 of the order relates to the transfer of the case to the C.I.A. And the date of the arrest of the accused has not been mentioned.
16. The next error pointed out is that it has been stated in the order of this Court that "a pistol made in Spain was recovered from the flat of the petitioner along with six live bullets. According to the learned counsel, no bullet was recovered. This contention has no force. Rustam Ali (P.W. 3) deposed that:-- "The accused Shaukat led us to his house in Gulshan-e-Iqbal. The house was a flat. From his house the accused Shaukat Hayat recovered a pistol with six live bullets thereof and produced the same before police." (Page 182).
17. Thus, there is no error and the facts have rightly been stated in the order of this Court. The petition was dismissed after considering the pieces of evidence against the petitioner. We see no force in this review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.