' RANA MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN, J.--- Manzoor Ahmed alias Manzoor Hussain, aged 42 years, son of Sardar was sent up to face the trial in an Indictment Exh.P.C. Recorded on the statement made at the Police Station Muridkey by Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.5), for committing the murder of Muhammad Shahbaz aged 26 years. The occurrence in this case allegedly took place on 22-11- 1989 at about 9-00 a.m. In the Qadri Street, Jinnah Park, Mandi Muridkey, at a distance of two furlongs from the Police Station Muridkey, District Sheikhupura.
2. The learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 19-6-1991 convicted the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. And he was awarded sentence to death with a fine of Rs,25,000 in default of payment whereof he was to undergo further two years' R.I. He was directed further to pay compensation of Rs,25,000 to be defrayed to the legal heirs of the deceased, if realized, and in default whereof to undergo additional two years' R.I.
3. Murder Reference No,321 of 1991 seeks confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the accused/appellant, who in turn challenges the conviction and sentence recorded against him through Criminal Appeal No,735 of 1991. Both the matters are being disposed of together by this single judgment.
4. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that Muhammad Shahbaz, deceased, was putting up with the complainant who was his father-in-law in his house situated in Mandi Muridkey.
Man7oor appellant was also son-in-law of the complainant who had turned out his wife from his house on account of her estrangement with the appellant. She was also residing with the complainant, her father. Manzoor accused/appellant had a suspicion that it was the deceased who did not allow his wife to come to his residence and to live with him as his wife. An altercation took place on this account between the deceased and the accused a day before the date of occurrence but the same was hushed up through the intervention of the complainant as being their father-in-law. The accused/appellant left the house of the complainant while extending threats of dire consequences. On 22-11-1989, the complainant alongwith the deceased and one Arshad Ali (given up P.W.) went to Qadri Street in connection to get the delivery of the purchased motorcycle from Malik Muhammad Anwar where they met Zafar Iqbal (P.W.) near the house of the appellant. On seeing the deceased, the appellant pulled out a carbine from his strap-belt and within their view, fired on the left side of the chest of the deceased, who after sustaining the fire- arm injury in order to save his life, ran towards the house of Malik Muhammad Anwar. He was chased by the accused/appellant and the P.Ws. Also followed them. The appellant fired a second shot hitting the deceased on the right side of his belly. The deceased Muhammad Shahbaz succumbed to his injuries at the spot. The appellant managed to decamp from the place of occurrence.
5. Abdul Haque, S.I. (P.W.8) after recording the F.I.R. (Exh.P.C.), assumed the investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence. At the spot he prepared inquest report (Exh.P.I.) and injury statement (Exh.P.J.) of the deceased. The dead body escorted by Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.10) and Muhammad Bashir (P.W.3) was sent to the mortuary for the post-mortem examination. The crime- empty P.6 was taken into possession from the spot vide memo. Exh.P.D. The blood-stained earth was secured vide memo. Exh.P.E. Bed-sheet (blood-stained) was seized vide memo. Exh.P.F., shoes P.8/1-2 of the deceased were also taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.G. The memos.
Were attested by the witnesses. A rough site plan Exh.P.L. Was prepared. The statements of the P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. Were recorded. Meanwhile Amanullah, Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W.11) reached the spot and took over the charge of the investigation. The last-worn clothes of the deceased, shirt P.1, vest P.2, Shalwar P.3, waist coat P.4, all blood-stained, were produced before him which he secured vide memo. Exh.P.B. On 1-12-1989, he arrested the accused, who was found to be in possession of carbine P.9. The same was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.H.
6. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Abdul Bari (P.W.9) Medical Officer, D.H.Q.
Hospital, Sheikhupura on 22-11-1989. He found the following injuries on the dead body of Muhammad Shahbaz, deceased:--
(1) Five fire-arm wounds of entrance each measuring 7 c.m. x 7 c.m. In an area of 14 c.m. x 4 c.m. On front and outer side of left side of chest, damaging skin, muscles, big blood vessels, heart and left lung. Three pellets removed.
(2) Nine fire-arm wounds of entrance each measuring about 7 c.m. x 7 c.m. In an area of 9 c.m. x 9 c.m. With tattooing around the edges of the wounds on front of mid of right side of abdomen 2 c.m.
Away from umbilicus, damaging skin, muscles, vessels, peritoneum small and large intestines, diaphragm, right lung, liver, right kidney and stomach. Four pellets were removed.
(3) Two fire-arm wounds of entrance each measuring 7 c.m. x 7 c.m. In an ear of 2.5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m.
On outer side of left forearm upper part, only muscle deep, making exit wounds in an area of 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. On back of left forearm lower part.
' In the opinion of the doctor death occurred because of severe shock and haemorrhage due to injuries aforesaid. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 individually and collectively were opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
7. On the completion of the investigation, the challan was submitted in the trial Court.
8. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case produced eleven witnesses in all. Rabnawaz Shah (P.W.1) Draftsman had prepared the site plans (Exhs.P.A. And PA/1), Rana Amjad All (P.W.2) had identified the dead body of the deceased at the time of his post-mortem examination.
Muhammad Bashir, Constable (P.W.3) had escorted the dead body to the mortuary for the post- mortem examination. Muhammad Arif, A.S.I. (P.W.4) had delivered the sealed parcels to the Chemical Examiner and the Forensic Science Laboratory. Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.5) and Muhammad Zafar (P.W.6) furnished the ocular account of the occurrence. Arshad All Shah (P.W.7) had deposed that the arrest of the appellant and the recovery of carbine and cartridges were effected in his presence. Abdul Haq, S.I. (P.W.8) had carried out the investigation. Dr. Abdul Bari (P.W.9) had conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. Muhammad Ashraf, Constable (P.W.10), had also escorted the dead body of the deceased to the mortuary for post- mortem examination and Amanullah Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W.11) had partly conducted the investigation, effected the arrest of the accused/appellant and after completing the investigation prepared the challan.
9. On the conclusion of the trial, the evidence led by the prosecution was put to the appellant. He was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He refuted the allegations and professed that he had found the deceased lying with his wife on the cot in an objectionable condition in a room of the house of Malik Muhammad Anwar and he out of grave and sudden provocation shot the deceased dead. However, he neither produced any defence witness nor did he make a statement on oath in disproof of the allegations levelled against him.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the perusal of the record with their assistance, we have given our anxious considerations to the facts and the circumstances of the case and have come to the conclusion that the prosecution had fully proved the charge. It was a broad daylight occurrence and had happened in the open street. According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 22-11-1989 at 9 a.m. And the offence was reported on the same day on 9-30 a.m. With a promptitude leaving no room for the manipulation and to falsely implicate the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.5) being the father-in-law of the deceased was highly interested witness has no force at all, for, the said witness was equally related to the deceased and the accused/appellant. It is true, as the record indicates, he is related to the deceased but this fact alone would not be sufficient to discard his evidence unless it suffered from any other legal infirmity. The witness becomes interested only if he besides being related to the deceased is also inimical towards the accused/appellant, particularly when his evidence is also shown to be trustworthy, reliable and confidence inspiring.
Since the complainant is closely related to the deceased as well as the accused/appellant, he cannot be dubbed as an interested witness. The perusal of the record reveals that he had given all the necessary details of the occurrence while lodging the F.I.R. And reaffirmed the same version at the trial. We do not find any such discrepancies in the version given in the F.I.R. Where he attributed effective firing at the deceased by the accused/appellant. He has very consistently charged the appellant.
11. Zafar lqbal (P.W.6) the other witness who furnished the ocular account testified and corroborated the testimony of the complainant. The record speaks volumes of his being an independent and disinterested. He was neither related to the deceased nor inimical to the accused. The record is indicative that he had no animosity with the accused/appellant and in addition thereto he had explained his presence at the spot of the occurrence satisfactorily. He was an, independent witness by all means. On the other hand, the defence/had miserably failed to bring any material on the record to suggest any doubt about his presence at the relevant time at the spot. The careful perusal of the statements of the two eye-witnesses make it abundantly clear that they had corroborated the version of each other regarding the time and the manner in which the occurrence took place. Both the eye-witnesses were cross-examined at a considerable length and the defence had miserably failed to bring any material on the file so as to give rise to believe that the prosecution story was false and the appellant was involved in a fabricated case. The examination of the prosecution evidence, on the other hand, shows that both the witnesses remained consistent and corroborative of each other on every aspect. Even if it be assumed that the complainant was an interested witness, he was fully corroborated by the independent and disinterested P.W.6.
12. The medical evidence is fully in consonance with the ocular account. The ocular evidence has further been corroborated by the arrest of the appellant by the police alongwith the crime weapon in the presence of Muhammad Riaz (given up P.W.) and Arshad Ali Shah (P.W.7) an independent witness. Even otherwise the appellant has not disputed the incident itself but he has pleaded that he had slayed Muhammad Shahbaz on account of "Ghairat". The appellant, when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Before the trial Court, stated that he was informed about the presence of the deceased and his wife in the house of Malik Muhammad Anwar. He scaled over the wall and saw the deceased in an objectionable position with his wife. He overwhelmed by the resentment, lost self-control and shot Muhammad Shahbaz dead.
13. Now the question arises as to whether the occurrence had taken place in a manner as alleged by the eye-witnesses or whether it had occurred as narrated by the accused/appellant. There is not even an iota of evidence available on the record to suggest the presence of his wife in the house of Malik Muhammad Anwar. Had the murder been taken place as alleged by the appellant, the complainant, being the father of his wife, would not have deposed against him in that manner.
The wife of Malik Muhammad Anwar was present in her house at the time of occurrence. No explanation has been given as to under what circumstances she allowed the deceased and the wife of the appellant to be joined in one room in her house to commit Zina. The stance taken by the defence is highly improbable in view of the non-presence of the wife of the appellant at the home of the said Malik Muhammad Anwar.
14. While summing up the case we have taken notice that the F.I.R. Exh.P.C. Was lodged with promptitude, the name of the appellant alongwith the crime weapon carried by him, was mentioned in the F.I.R., the name of the witnesses and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place was also given in detail. The ocular testimony is in conformity with the medical evidence coupled with the factum of recovery of the weapons of offence. The defence could not bring any contradictory material on the file to impeach the prosecution evidence.
15. The wife of the appellant had deserted him and he had suspicion that the deceased was an impediment in the conjugation of his wife. It is in the prosecution version that an altercation had also taken place in the house of the complainant between the deceased and the appellant two days prior to the occurrence. He had also suspicion of illicit relations of the deceased with his wife.
In these circumstances of the case, we find though it cannot be said that the appellant had committed the murder under the impulse of grave and sudden provocation yet it can least be said that the appellant was led to commit the murder of Muhammad Shahbaz under continuing provocation which furnishes extenuating circumstances for awarding the lesser penalty.
16. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. Is maintained. However, we are not inclined to confirm the sentence of death. The death sentence is altered to imprisonment for life. The sentences of fine and that off compensation and sentences in default of their payment on each count shall, however, remain intact. The appellant shall also be given benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Death sentence is not confirmed.
Sentence reduced. 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.