' Muhammad Ehsan (28), Muhammad Ashraf (27) and Muhammad Iqbal (28/29) were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab, alongwith Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Khan and Khan Muhammad, for having murdered Imam Bakhsh and for having launched murderous assault on Ahmad Iqbal, at 6-30 p.m. On 7-6-1988 near Imam Bara in village Kurpalka, at a distance of 10 miles from Police Station Jauharabad, District Khushab.
' Vide judgment dated 8-7-1989, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted them under sections 302/34 and 324/34, P.P.C. And awarded sentences as follows: ' Under section 302/34, P.P.C. Each of the three sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life plus to pay a fine of Rs,10,0b0 each in default whereof to undergo R.I. For 2 years each.
' Whole of the fine, on recovery, was directed to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
' Under section 324/34, P.P.C. Each of the three sentenced to undergo R.I. For 2 years plus to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 each in default whereof to suffer R.I. For six months each.
' Muhammad Sarwar, Khan Muhammad and Muhammad Khan were acquitted vide same judgment.
2. The convicts have filed appeal. The complainant has filed revision petition (Criminal Revision No,436 of 1989) for enhancement of sentences of the convicts as well as for enhancement of amount of compensation. He has also preferred revision petition (Criminal Revision No,445 of 1989) against acquittal of Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Khan and Khan Muhammad. As all the matters have arisen out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of together.
3. F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 was registered at the police station by Nazar Muhammad, A.S.I. (P.W.3) at 1-30 a.m.
On 8-6-1988, on receipt of statement of Exh.PA. Of Ata Muhammad (P.W.7) recorded by Sagheer Hussain, Si (P.W.11) at 12-15 a.m. On the same day.
' According to F.I.R. Imam Bakhsh was attacked by Muhammad Ehsan, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ashraf appellants, armed with knives, accompanied by Sarwar, Muhammad Khan and Khan Muhammad (acquitted accused) (empty handed) near Imam Bara when he was returning home after attending the marriage of son of Fateh Muhammad, alongwith his friend Ahmad Iqbal.
Imam Bakhsh was caught by Muhammad Khan and Khan Muhammad on the Lalkara raised by Muhammad Ehsan, whereafter he (Muhammad Ehsan) caused him injury with knife on the right side of back, while Muhammad Ashraf gave him 2 successive blows on the right upper arm. When Ahmad Iqbal tried to rescue him, Muhammad Sarwar caught him and Muhammad Iqbal gave him injury on the back, while Muhammad Ehsan caused him injury on the head with the handle (URDU TEXT) of knife. Khan Muhammad son of Muhammad Sher and Muhammad Khan son of Jalal Khan who were following Imam Bakhsh and Ahmad Iqbal, witnessed the occurrence, and rescued him by beseaching the accused.
' Ata Muhammad had not witnessed the occurrence himself. He had reached the spot on receipt of information and was told the details of the occurrence by Imam Bakhsh (deceased), Khan Muhammad and Muhammad Khan P.Ws.
' The accused suspected that Imam Bakhsh (deceased) was having illicit connections with their relative Mst. Amir Khatoon. They had launched attack on that account.
4. The F.I.R. Was registered under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. Offence under section 302, P.P.C. Was added on the expiry of Imam Bakhsh on the same night at about 2 a.m.
5. Sagheer Hussain, S.I. Had gone to Civil Hospital, Jauharabad on receipt of information about the occurrence. Before recording statement Exh.PA. Of Ata Muhammad he had drafted application Exh.P.N. To solicit opinion of the Medical Officer regarding fitness of Imam Bakhsh and Ahmad Iqbal to make statement. As the doctor was busy in Casualty Ward, with injured, he recorded statement of Ata Muhammad instead of waiting for him. Ata Muhammad while making statement had produced medico-legal certificates of Imam Bakhsh and Ahmad Iqbal, alongwith blood-stained shirt P.4 and Bunyan P.5 of Imam Bakhsh, which were taken into possession by the S.I. Vide memo.
Exh.P.E. He had also produced shirt P.6 and vest P.7 of Ahmad Iqbal, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.H.
' The S.I. Recorded statement of Ahmad Iqbal on being informed by the doctor at 1-45 a.m. That he was fit to make a statement. The doctor had opined that Imam Bakhsh was not fit to make a statement.
' Imam Bakhsh died during the same night in the hospital. The S.I. Despatched the dead body for post-mortem examination after preparing injury statement Exh.P.P. And inquest report Exh.P.Q.
Thereafter he went to the spot and collected blood-stained earth from there during spot inspection vide memo. Exh.P.F.
' All the six accused were arrested by him on 12-6-1988. Muhammad Ehsan during custody of Abdul Sattar, S.I. (P.W.5) who was also assisting in the investigation, led to the recovery of knife P.1 on 20- 6-1988, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C. On the same day, knife P.2 got recovered by Muhammad Ashraf was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.D. While knife P3 got recovered by Muhammad Iqbal on the same day, was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. All the knives were stained with blood.
' S.H.O. Sagheer Hussain submitted the challan to Court after completion of necessary investigation.
6. Statements of fourteen P.Ws. Were recorded at the trial.
' Dr. Nasir Iqbal Bhutta, who had medically examined Imam Bakhsh (deceased) whilst alive on 7-6- 1988, at 9-00 p.m. Had noted following injuries on his person:--
(1) A stab wound 1-1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. On the right side of back of chest, 5 c.m. From vertebral column and along the medial border of right scapula. Surgical emphysema was present on right lateral chest.
(2) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 4 c.m. Into muscle deep anterior aspect of bicep muscle exposed on the medial side of right of upper arm.
(3) An incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. Near about 3 c.m. From injury No,2. Swelling around right upper arm was present.
' The patient was in shock and his condition was not satisfactory. All the injuries were opined to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon within a duration of 2-3 hours.
' The same doctor (P.W.10) had medically examined Ahmad Iqbal on the same day and had noted following injuries on his person:--
(1) A lacerated wound 1 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. Into muscle deep on the top of head.
(2) A stab wound 4-1/2 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep on the right side of the back of chest, just lateral to vertebral column.
' Injury No,1 which was opined to have been caused by a blunt weapon, was declared simple, while injury No,2 which was opined to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon, was kept under observation. The injuries were opined to have been caused within a duration of 2-3 hours.
' The injury of Iqbal Ahmad which was kept under observation, was declared simple.
' He had sent Ruqqa Exh.P.K. To the S.H.O. Police Station Jauharabad about admission of injured persons to the hospital.
' The same doctor had performed autopsy on the dead body of Imam Bakhsh on 8-6-1988 at 9-00 a.m. And had noted the injuries, found by him during medical examination on 7-6-1988 at 9-00 p.m.
' On internal examination he had found right lung and pleura punctured. Right lung had collapsed.
There was a punctured wound on posterior chest wall.
' Death was opined to have occurred due to haemorrhage and shock, resulting from injury No,1.
Injuries Nos.2 and 3 were declared simple. Probable time between injuries and death was opined to be within 7 to 8 hours while time between death and post-mortem was opined to be within 7 hours.
7. Ata Muhammad who had lodged the F.I.R., appeared as P.W.7 and repeated the facts given by him in the F.I.R. He stated that he had reached 5-10 minutes after the occurrence and was given the details of occurrence, by Imam Bakhsh (deceased), Ahmad Iqbal, Muhammad Khan and Khan Muhammad P.Ws. While deposing about inter se relationship of the accused, he stated that Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Khan were brothers, Muhammad Ehsan was son of Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Ashraf and Khan Muhammad were sons of Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Iqbal was son of sister of Muhammad Ashraf and Khan Muhammad. According to him, Mst. Amir Khatoon was the niece of Muhammad Ashraf and Khan Muhammad. During cross- examination he admitted that Khan Muhammad P.W. Was his paternal-uncle while Muhammad Khan P.W. Was husband of his paternal-aunt. He gave out that his village consisted of two Abadis.
According to him the accused were living in one Abadi while he alongwith Imam Bakhsh (deceased) was living in the other Abadi. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was a man of immoral habits and had illicit connections with many other women.
' According to him the accused had started suspecting his illicit relations with Mst. Amir Khatoon six months- prior to the occurrence. He denied the suggestion that when he had reached the spot, the deceased was unconscious and not able to talk. He stated that he was semi-conscious but had narrated the occurrence to him,
8. Ahmad Iqbal P.W.8 gave the account of the occurrence in the same manner as deposed to by P.W.7. He stated that he had gone alongwith the deceased to the house of Fateh Muhammad to attend marriage at 4-00 p.m. And had taken meals there at 5/5-30 p.m. He denied the suggestion that they could have taken a different route to go to their house and that they had adopted the route on which the occurrence took place as Imam Bakhsh (deceased) wanted to meet Mst. Amir Khatoon, for illicit purposes. According to him the occurrence took place at a distance of 30 Karams from the house of Fateh Muhammad. He denied the suggestion that Imam Bakhsh had called out Mst. Amir Khatoon in the street near the Imambara, and was talking to her when Muhammad Ashraf came there by chance and objected to that, whereupon they abused him and taunted, about illicit relations with Mst. Amir Khatoon. He also denied the suggestion that on that account Ehsan under grave and sudden provocation caused knife blows to the deceased and to him. He also denied the suggestion that the occurrence actually had taken place at 8-00 p.m. And none else had witnessed the occurrence. The suggestion that he had not suffered any injury at the hands of Ehsan appellant, was denied by him.
9. Muhammad Khan who appeared as P.W.9 corroborated the statements made by P.W.7 and P.W.8 about the occurrence. During cross-examination he stated that he had accompanied the injured to Civil Hospital, Jauharabad but his statement was recorded by the Thanedar at the spot on the following day at 10-10 a.m. He claimed that Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Sarwar accused were maternal-uncles of his mother. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the occurrence and made a false statement for being a relative of the deceased. He stated that none from the neighbourhood had reached the spot during the occurrence. According to him numerous persons had come there soon after the occurrence.
10. Muhammad Yaqub, alias Abdul Ghafoor who appeared as P.W.13 claimed to have witnessed the recovery of knives P.1, P.2 and P.3 at the pointing out of Muhammad Ehsan, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Iqbal. During cross-examination he admitted that he was residing in a different village at a distance of 1-1/2 k.m. And had joined the police when he had met them in the village, where the occurrence had taken place, where he had gone to see one Jalal. The suggestion that he was a stock-witness of the police for being a Razakar, and that he had made a false statement on account of that, was denied by him.
11. His statement with regard to the recoveries has been corroborated by Abdul Sattar, S.I. (P.W.5).
12. Sagheer Hussain, S.I. Who had recorded Exh.PA. Statement of Ata Muhammad on the basis of which the case was registered at the police station and had gone to the hospital and visited the spot as well, appeared as P.W.11 and deposed those facts. He also stated that he had recorded statements of the P.Ws. And despatched the dead body of Imam Bakhsh for post-mortem after preparing necessary papers. He also claimed to have arrested all the accused on 12-6-1988.
' During cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he had recorded the statements of Ata Muhammad and Ahmad Iqbal P.Ws. On the following day of the occurrence after preliminary investigation at the spot. He admitted that Muhammad Khan, Khan Muhammad and Muhammad Sarwar in their first version before him had declared that they had not participated in the occurrence, and had reached the spot after the occurrence. He denied the suggestion that the version of the accused before him was that they had caused injuries to the deceased and Ahmad Iqbal P.W. Under grave and sudden provocation, on having seen them talking to Mst. Amir Khatoon.
The statements of the remaining P.Ws. Are more or less of a formal nature.
13. Positive reports Exhs.P.S. And P.T. From the office of the Chemical Examiner and Exhs.P.U. And P.V.
From the office of the Serologist were also tendered in evidence.
14. The appellants as well as the acquitted accused during their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution case as a whole and pleaded innocence. All of them declined to make statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
' They examined in defence Fateh Muhammad son of Haji Ahmad who stated that he had not invited Imam Bakhsh (deceased) and Ahmad Iqbal P.W. On the marriage ceremony of his nephew Ishaq. During cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he had actually invited them to the wedding but had made a false statement.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants after having gone through the evidence, criticised the impugned judgment and contended that neither Khan Muhammad (given up P.W.) nor Muhammad Khan P.W.9 had witnessed the occurrence; that the occurrence actually had taken place at 8-00 p.m.; that the F.I.R. Was lodged on the following day after deliberations and consultations and that P.W. Ahmad Iqbal had palpably made a false statement.
' Learned counsel contended that the occurrence actually appears to have taken place in the manner, suggested during cross-examination, and so the appellants cannot be held liable for having committed intentional murder. In the alternative, learned counsel argued that Muhammad Iqbal appellant cannot be held liable for having committed the murder of Imam Bakhsh (deceased) as even according to the prosecution he had not caused any injury to the deceased.
16. Canvassing that Ahmad Iqbal P.W. Was not a truthful witness, learned counsel referred to the statement made by Dr. Nasir Iqbal P.W.10 that the stomach of the deceased contained digested food, and argued, that, had the deceased taken food in the house of Fateh Muhammad at 5/5-30 p.m. As stated by Ahmad Iqbal P.W., the state of the stomach contents of Imam Bakhsh would not have been the one, found by the doctor. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the testimony of D.W.1 Fateh Muhammad in support of his argument that actually the deceased and Ahmad Iqbal P.W. Had not even attended the marriage on the day of occurrence and that the story that the deceased and Ahmad Iqbal P.W. Were attacked when they were coming after attending the marriage of nephew of Fateh Muhammad D.W., stood falsified.
17. Notwithstanding the fact that the deposition of Ahmad Iqbal P.W. That he alongwith the deceased had taken food in the house of Fateh Muhammad D.W. At 5-00/5-30 p.m., stands contradicted by the observation of the doctor who had performed autopsy, regarding contents of the stomach, I do not think it would be enough justification to discard the testimony of Ahmad Iqbal and the version of the prosecution deposed to by Ata Muhammad complainant.
' Although Fateh Muhammad who was examined in defence, supported their (appellants') claim that Imam Bakhsh (deceased) and Ahmad Iqbal P.W. Were not invited and so had not attended the marriage, yet he did prove that the wedding of his nephew was fixed for that day. The statement of Fateh Muhammad D.W. That he had not invited these two persons, does not inspire confidence, the reason for that, is that if the deceased and Ahmad Iqbal had not been invited, or had they not attended the marriage, there would have been no necessity for the complainant and Ahmad Iqbal P.W. To have stated so, for, that was not going to support their version of the occurrence, in any significant manner.
' The statement of Ahmad Iqbal P.W. And deposition of Ata Muhammad complainant, in the circumstances, cannot be thrown away merely on that account.
18. The suggestion that the occurrence had taken place at 8-00 p.m. Was also an attempt in wilderness to create a dent in the prosecution story.
' The deceased and Ahmad Iqbal P.W. Were medically examined at Jauharabad Civil Hospital, at a distance of 10 miles from the village, at 9-00 p.m. On the same day, If the occurrence had taken place at 8-00 p.m. Ata Muhammad who never claimed to have witnessed the occurrence, could not have so swiftly removed the two injured, one of whom was in precarious condition, so speedily to produce them for medical examination at 9-00 p.m. It is obvious that some time would have been consumed at the spot to make arrangements for shifting of the accused to the hospital. They could not have covered a distance of 10 miles within less than 20-30 minutes. As it was night time, the doctor must also have been called from his house.
' The time of the medical examination of the injured, fits in with the time of the occurrence, deposed to by the prosecution. The opinion of the doctor regarding duration of injuries to the deceased as well as to Ahmad Iqbal P.W. Also tallies with the time of the occurrence stated by the prosecution.
19. Muhammad Khan P.W.9 although was related to the deceased, yet was not on inimical terms with the appellants. His presence, round about the place of occurrence as explained by him, was plausible. His claim that he had accompanied both the injured to the hospital, finds support from the entries in the relevant columns of the medico-legal certificates of Imam Bakhsh and Ahmad Iqbal. Had he not been at the spot, he would not have gone to the hospital with the injured.
20. The presence of Ahmad Iqbal P.W. Is not denied even by the accused.
' Ahmad Iqbal P.W. Also had no enmity with any of the appellants. In fact he was not even suggested anything, particularly in that regard, He cannot be dubbed as a liar, merely for being a friend of the deceased.
21. Muhammad Ashraf appellant himself had not owned the suggestions put during cross- examination that it was he who had met the deceased and Ahmad Iqbal P.W. And objected to their meeting with Mst. Amir Khatoon, while making statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Nor had he owned that he had inflicted injuries to the deceased and Ahmad Iqbal under grave and sudden provocation. Muhammad Ehsan appellant also had not owned that fact.
22. The suggested version even otherwise does not find any support from the record, rather adverse circumstances exist on record. In that, it is not possible to believe that the deceased in prosecution of his illicit connections with Mst. Amir Khatoon, would have taken Ahmad Iqbal P.W.
With him, even if he was his friend. The argument that both being young might have a common link vis-a-vis illicit connections with Mst. Amir Khatoon, does not advance the case of the appellants because in view of the admitted fact that there was a marital function in a house near the place of occurrence, the deceased could not have been that fool to have gone for such a nasty affair knowing full well that a large number of persons are roaming about nearby. Moreover, 6-30 p.m. In the month of June is not a time for prosecution of such connection in a thickly populated place.
' In the circumstances the version suggested by the defence is ruled out, as.Absolutely unworthy of notice even.
23. The testimony of the eye-witnesses finds corroboration from the statement of Ata Muhammad as well, who had been told the occurrence by the deceased himself also. The statement made by the deceased about the injuries suffered by him immediately after the occurrence, to a person who had immediately reached there, is admissible and relevant. He had died a few hours thereafter, on account of the same injuries.
24. The ocular account also finds support from the recovery of knives, which were later found stained with blood. The medical evidence in turn also supports the ocular account.
25. The participation of the appellants in the occurrence, therefore, stands proved.
' However, there appears to be weight in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that Muhammad Iqbal appellant may not have shared intention with the other appellants to commit the murder of the deceased. He had neither exhorted his companions to cause his death nor had himself inflicted any injury. Maintenance of his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. In the circumstances, would not be safe administration of justice. He is, therefore, acquitted of the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. The sentences awarded to him on that account are set aside. However, his conviction and sentence under section 324/34, P.P.C. Are maintained.
28. The case against Muhammad Ehsan and Muhammad Ashraf appellants stands proved. The appeal qua them is dismissed. The sentences awarded to both of them under section 302/34, P.P.C.
And 324/34, P.P.C. Shall run concurrently. They shall be given benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. As well.
29. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed both the revision petitions. The same are disposed of as having not been pressed.