' This appeal arises from the judgment dated 9-9-1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore whereby Muhammad Saddique, Mehraj Din and Liaqat Ali accused were acquitted and Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Azam and Taj Din accused were convicted under section 302/307 read with section 34, P.P.C. For committing the murder of Khushi Muhammad and causing injuries to Mst. Parveen and Mudassar P.Ws. As well as Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Ayub, D.Ws.
Against this judgment Taj Din has filed Criminal Appeal No,985 of 1991 and Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Azam filed Criminal Appeal No,1047 of 1991 and both the appeals would be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Hi nutshell, the case of the prosecution as contained in the F.I.R. Exh.PA is to the effect that in the morning of 5-10-1986, Miraj Din, Liaqat Ali and Saddique acquitted accused, alongwith Khadim Ali and Muhammad Ashraf and others encroached upon the Government land lying just near the house of Khushi Muhammad deceased which was resisted by him and the said accused started ruing in the air. Khushi Muhammad got the case registered against them for firing. It is alleged that the accused persons, therefore, bore grudge and, therefore, on the same day at about 11-45 p.m.
Muhammad Akram, Taj Din appellant armed with pistols and Muhammad Saddique and Azam accused carrying .12 bore guns, in furtherance of their common intentions, came in front of the house of the deceased and started abusing him who then was sitting in the Deohri of the house.
They were proclaiming that they would take the revenge of the morning incident. Muhammad Akram appellant fired at Khushi Muhammad which hit him on right axilla. Khushi Muhammad attempted to retreat but all the four accused, Akram, Taj, Saddique and Muhammad Azam started firing with their fire-arms which hit at the back of the chest and other parts of the body of Khushi Muhammad, who fell down in the Deohri. Mst. Parveen wife of Khushi Muhammad, Razzaq, son of the complainant and Mudassar Hussain, brother-in-law of the complainant who were present in the house came out after hearing the abuses and also the firing. They attempted to lift Khushi Muhammad but all the said accused started firing injuring Parveen, Razzaq and Mudassar.
Muhammad Ayub and Muhammad Azam D.Ws. Who were passing through the street also received injuries. Khushi Muhammad died at the spot. Ali the accused left the place of occurrence raising Lalkaras. Muhammad Bashir P.W. Had also reached the place of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence.
3. Muhammad Rafique Agha, Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared the inquest report Exh.PN and injury statement Exh.PO of Khushi Muhammad deceased.
The Investigating Officer also collected the blood-stained earth from the spot and secured it vide memo Exh.PL. He prepared the site plan Exh.PP and took into possession the last-worn clothes of the deceased Exhs. P.2, P.3 and P.4 vide memo Exh.PE. Muhammad Akram appellant was arrested on 12-10-1986 and he led to recovery of pistol Exh.P.5 which was secured vide memo Exh.PM. The draughtsman prepared the site plan Exh.PF and PF/1. Mehraj Din and Liaquat Ali accused were arrested on 15-10-1986 and the agreement deed produced by Mehraj Din was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PB. Taj Din and Muhammad Siddique accused were arrested on 19-10- 1986 and .12 bore single barrel gun P.9 produced by the father of Siddique accused, was secured on 22-10-1986 vide memo Exh.PC. Muhammad Azam accused was arrested on 28-10-1986 and after the completion of investigation, a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted by Muhammad Siddique D.S.P. (C.W.1).
4. Dr. Saeed Ahmed (P.W.11) did the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Khushi Muhammad on 6-10-1986 at 11 a.m. And found six injuries on his person. In his opinion the death in this case was due to injury No,4 which led to profuscd haemorrhage, shock and which became the cause of death, and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries were ante-mortem and were caused by fire-arm. The probable duration between injuries and death was soon after and between death and post-mortem was about 8 to 16 hours approximately. Exh.PG is the correct carbon copy of the post-mortem report of the deceased and Exh.PG/1 and Exh.PG/2 are the pictorial diagrams showing the location of the injuries. Dr. Tariq Lateef, had examined the injured P.Ws. On 6-10-1986, did not appear as a witness as he had gone abroad. The medico-legal reports in respect of the examinations of Mudassar Hussain, Muhammad Ayub, Mst. Parveen and Muhammad Azam are Exh.PH, Exh.PI, Exh.PJ and Exh.PK respectively. Mudassar and Ayub had suffered two fire-arm injuries each and three fire-arm injuries were noticed on the person of Mst. Parveen whereas Azam (D.W.1) suffered four injuries.
5. After prosecution evidence concluded, the appellant alongwith the acquitted accused were asked to explain the circumstances appearing against them. They denied all the allegations ascribed to them in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Mehraj Din accused, however, held the complainant party as responsible for initiating the mischief, as the boundary wall which was got constructed by him was demolished by the complainant party. None of the accused appeared as their own witness as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. But two injured P.Ws. Who were given up by the prosecution as being won over by the accused produced in defence as D.Ws.
1 and 2. After the trial, the judgment as mentioned above was announced by the learned trial Court.
6. Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the evidence on record does not justify the conviction and sentence of the appellant and same, therefore, merit to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be acquitted. It was argued that the ocular evidence was of partisan nature and no independent corroboration of such evidence forthcoming from unimpeachable source, so it is not safe to record the conviction on bare word of eye-witnesses, charging accused with the commission of crime and assigning them specific role. It was added with vehemence that the presence of injuries on the persons may prove his presence at the spot but not necessarily his participation in the occurrence. It was also argued that even the presence of injuries on the person of the P.Ws. Would not make him a truthful witness and nor it can be considered what they have stated was nothing but the truth. It was lastly argued that when eye-witnesses are not found entirely reliable and despite their testimony three out of six accused were acquitted, so the mere fact that rest of accused were ascribed a specific role in the occurrence while this was not so in case of acquitted accused, would not by itself furnish a safe basis for their conviction by drawing distinction. Some discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the P.Ws. Were also highlighted by the learned counsel to make the case of the prosecution doubtful.
7. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that three eye- witnesses being the inmates of the house were the only natural witnesses whose testimony was rightly believed by the learned trial Judge corroborated as it was by the recovery of blood-stained earth, medical evidence and the evidence of recoveries. Any how he supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.
8. I have heard the learned counsel at length and have gone through the prosecution evidence and the defence version with their able assistance. First of all I take up the ocular account from the prosecution evidence which was furnished by Muhammad Hanif, Mst. Parveen and Mudassar Hussain (P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3). Muhammad Hanif is the complainant and the deceased was his real brother. Mst. Parveen is the widow of the deceased. Mudassir Hussain is the real brother of Mst.
Parveen. Similarly Miraj Din and Azam accused are real brothers while Liaquat Ali accused was subordinate to Miraj Din in Batapur Factory and Muhammad Akram, Taj Din and Muhammad Saddique are said to be hired assassins.
9. The most important point to be seen in this case is whether the appellants could join hands with each other to commit this murder and whether they could be identified when it was a mid-night occurrence and whether ocular testimony of the abovesaid three eye-witnesses can be relied upon when they are closely related to the deceased. It is a law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that it could not be laid down as an inflexible rule that statement of an interested witness could never be accepted without corroboration, and it has also been laid down that it is not necessary that there should be the word of an independent witness supporting the story put forward by an interested witness. Corroboration may be afforded by any thing in the circumstances of a case which tend sufficiently to satisfy the mind of the Court that the witness has spoken the truth. Reliance can be placed on judgments eported as Nasir and others v. The State PLD 1962 SC 269; Sardar Ali v. State PLD 1967 SC 217 and Niaz v. State PLD 1960 SC 386.
10. The evidence of the complainant is that he alongwith his deceased brother was sitting in the Deohri at about 11-45 p.m. When Akram and Taj Din appellants armed with pistols and Siddique and Azam carrying .12 bore guns came in front of the house of the deceased and started abusing and proclaiming that they would take the revenge of the morning incident. Muhammad Akram appellant fired his pistol which hit the deceased at his right armpit. The deceased tried to run away but all the said four accused continued firing which hit on his back besides other parts of the body.
The deceased fell down in the Deohri and died there instantaneously. Mst. Parveen, Mudassar and Razzaq, who were present in the house of the deceased, also received firearm injuries when they tried to lift the dead body of the deceased. Ayub and Azam D.Ws. Are just the passersby and they also received the injuries during the indiscriminating firing. Mst. Parveen and Mudassar (P.Ws.2 and 3) have reiterated the testimony of Muhammad Hanif (P.W.1) and has lent him support on all material particulars. Their presence at the place of occurrence is natural. They being the relatives of the deceased and the injuries on their person further strengthen their testimony. They had come out from the house after hearing the firing report. These witnesses do not have any background of enmity with the accused persons. They withstood the searching cross-examination. Although Muhammad Hanif (P.W.1) lives in the next street of the house of the deceased but he was present with the deceased due to the morning incident. They were apprehending reprisal from the accused persons due to the morning incident. The argument of the learned defence counsel to discard the evidence of Muhammad Hanif as he had not received any injury is devoid If any force. In my view if he had escaped he was lucky; otherwise it was not difficult to contemplate one out of 7/8 persons missing injuries. The discrepancies and the contradictions highlighted by the learned defence counsel in my view were insignificant and are not detracting from inherent strength and truthfulness of the prosecution version.
11. The most important question in this case is of the identification of the accused persons when the occurrence took place at night time. Ali the eyewitnesses have unanimously made it clear that there was electric light inside and 'outside the house. Even otherwise all the accused persons and the eyewitnesses belong to the same village and both the sides were known to each other, so they could not mistake the identity of the accused persons. It is pertinent to mention here that both the defence witnesses have also stated that they could see Salam Din driving tractor-trolly with 15/20 persons and they had hit the trolly against the wall. In view of this position, I, therefore, believe the witnesses that they could identify the assailants in the electric light.
12. The evidence of the prosecution regarding the recoveries in this case was rendered as inconsequential by the learned trial Court as no foulings were recovered from the barrels of the shotgun of .12 bore and the pistol of 30 bore in question therefore, no opinion was given as to when the weapons were last fired according to the report of the Fire-Arms Expert. Similarly the evidence of the prosecution about the conspiracy was also not accepted by the learned trial Court as there is no evidence that when and where and how the conspiracy was hatched and how it can be said that firing by the accused persons were caused at the instance of Miraj Din and Liaquat Ali acquitted accused. They were, therefore, rightly acquitted as the charge under section 302/109 was not proved against them. In this case Muhammad Siddique was acquitted by the learned trial Court as he was under arrest in a case under section 447/336/147/148, P.P.C. Registered with the police on 5-10-1986 which occurrence took place in the morning of day of occurrence. Even Mst.
Parveen (P.W.2) had admitted in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. That Muhammad Siddique accused was under arrest with the police at the time of occurrence. It may be pointed out that no Criminal Revision or State appeal has been filed against the acquittal of Muhammad Siddique, So it does not need any further discussion.
13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the judgment of the learned trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity whereby all the three appellants were convicted under section 302/307, P.P.C. And section 34, P.P.C. However, they shall be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
The evidence rendered by the three eye-witnesses against the appellants is more natural, cogent, consistent and truthful which is also supported by the medical evidence with a strong motive having been proved against them which perpetrated them to commit the crime. They intentionally committed the murder of Khushi Muhammad and caused injuries to Mst. Parveen, Mudassar Hussain P.Ws. And Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Ayub D.Ws. Received injuries when they were outside the house. I, therefore, uphold the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Both the appeals having no force are dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.