' Safdar (19/20) and his brother Shaukat Ali (16/17) were tried alongwith their father Abdullah (60/62) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, for having murdered Liaquat Ali on 9-7-1989 at 7-00 a.m. In Killa No,25, Square No,21 in the area of Chak No,582/G.B. At a distance of 8 miles from Police Station Lundianwala, District Faisalabad.
' Vide judgment, dated 28-8-1990, both of them (Safdar and Shaukat Ali) were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life plus to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 each, in default whereof to undergo R.I. For two years. Each of them was also directed to pay a sum of Rs,5,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased in default whereof to suffer R.I. For 6 months each. Benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended.
' Their father Abdullah was acquitted vide same judgment.
2. The appeal filed by the convicts and the revision petition filed by the complainant against the acquittal of Abdullah are being disposed of together, having arisen out of the same judgment.
3. F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 was registered at the police station on 9-7-1989 at 8-45 a.m. By Muhammad Aslam, M.H.C., P.W.5 on receipt of statement Exh.P.C. Of Shahadat Ali P.W.7 recorded by Masroor Ahmad, S.-I./S.H.O. P.W.11 on the same day at 8-00 a.m. At Adda Chowk Hamandsa in the area of Chak No,378/G.B.
' According to F.I.R. The complainant accompanied by his deceased son Liaquat Ali, Muhammad Yusuf and Mir Muhammad, started from his house at 7-00 a.m. For their shops on Syedwala Road.
After coming out of the village Liaquat Ali rode bicycle. When he reached near Killa No,25 of Square No,21. Safdar and Abdullah armed with hatchets and Shaukat Ali armed with a dagger who were sitting on the passage, affronted him. All three of them pulled Liaquat Ali from the bicycle and dragged him to Killa No,25, Square No,21. Abdullah inflicted a blow with the hatchet on the neck of Liaquat Ali. Shaukat gave a dagger blow on the abdomen while Safdar hit him with the hatchet, on the right cheek. Second blow given by Safdar struck Liaquat All on the head. Another blow given by Abdullah struck him on the right side of neck. Thereafter, all three of them caused him injuries on the right shoulder, top of head on the back, abdomen and chest. The complainant, Muhammad Yusuf and Mir Muhammad witnessed the occurrence and cried for help to save Liaquat Ali.
However, they did not dare intervene. Liaquat Ali died on the spot. The accused ran away, raising Lalkaras and telling the complainant that he may take away the dead body of his son.
4. About motive for the occurrence, it is stated therein that Abdullah and his sons suspected illicit connections of the deceased with Mst. Rehana daughter of Abdullah and sister of the appellants.
5. Masroor Ahmad, S.-I. After dispatching statement Exh.P.C. To the police station for registration of case, reached the spot, despatched the dead body for post-mortem, after preparing necessary papers, and collected bloodstained earth from there vide memo. Exh.P.D. Bicycle P.5 lying on the spot was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E.
Safdar and Shaukat Ali appellants were arrested by the S.-I. On 29-7-1989. Blood-stained hatchet P.6 got recovered by Safdar from his house on 3-8-1989 was taken into possession vide memo.
Exh.P.F. While blood-stained dagger P.8 got recovered by Shaukat on the same day from the same house was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.G.
' Abdullah (acquitted accused) was arrested on 1-8-1989. Hatchet P.8 got recovered by him on 12- 8-1989 from his house, was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.H. Challan was submitted to Court after completion of necessary investigation.
6. Statements of eleven P.Ws. Were recorded at the trial.
' Dr. Shahid Jamil, who had performed autopsy on 9-7-1989 at 1-30 p.m. Appeared as P.W.10. He had noted following injuries on the body of the deceased:--
(1) An incised wound 3-1/2 x 1 c.m. On front of top of head.
(2) An incised wound 2 x 1 c.m. On top of centre of head.
(3) An incised wound 15 x 4 c.m., bone cut with brain matter out on right side of head.
(4) An incised wound 12 x 4 c.m. With underlying bone cut on right side of face.
(5) An incised wound 2 x 1 c.m. Skin cut on right side of neck upper part.
(6) An incised wound 12 x 5 c.m. With underlying bone cut on back of right side of head.
(7) An incised wound 4 x 2 c.m. Skin cut on back of neck.
(8) An incised wound 10 x 1 c.m. On front of chest on upper part skin cut.
(9) A stab wound 3 x 1 c.m. Probe passed freely on upper part of centre of abdomen.
(10) A stab wound 2 x 1 c.m. Probe passed freely 1 c.m. From injury No,9.
(11) A stab wound 3 x 1-1/2 c.m. Probe passed freely on left side front of chest lower part.
(12) A stab wound 2 x 2 c.m. Probe passed freely 3 c.m. From injury No,11.
(13) A stab wound 3 x 1-1/2 c.m. On front of right side of chest, probe passed freely.
(14) An incised wound 3 x 1-1/2 c.m. Skin cut on outer and lower part of right chest.
(15) A stab wound 7 x 2-1/2 c.m. On right side front of abdomen power part, intestine protruding outside.
(16) An incised wound 2 x 1 c.m. On outer side of right elbow skin deep.
(17) An incised wound 3 x 1 c.m. Skin deep on front of left elbow.
(18) An incised wound 12 x 1-1/2 c.m. Superficial on the back of right shoulder.
(19) An incised wound 10 x 1-1/2 c.m. Superficial on the back of right shoulder verticle to injury No,18.
(20) A stab wound 3 x 1-1/2 c.m., probe passed freely on the back of lower part of left abdomen.
' All the injuries were opined to have been caused by sharp-edged and sharp-edged pointed weapon. Menenges and brain matter were found protruding out from the right side of head. Right pleura, right lung and blood vessels were found injured.
' Death was opined to have occurred due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from the above noted injuries. Time between the injuries and death was opined to be immediate while the probable time between death and post-mortem was 6-1/2 hours.
7. Ocular account was deposed to by Shahadat Ali P.W.7 and Muhammad Yusuf P.W.8.
' Shahadat Ali while repeating the facts given by him in the F.I.R., stated during cross-examination that Adda Hamand was at a distance of 1-1/2 miles from their village and the place of occurrence was one acre from the village Abadi. He admitted that Muhammad Yusuf P.W. Was his brother while Mir Muhammad P.W. Was his son-in-law. .According to him the Dharies of Sikandar and Waryam etc. Were at a distance of 40 Karams from Kila No,25. He denied the suggestion that his son was beaten as a thief or trespasser, by someone. The suggestion that none of them was accompanying the deceased at the time of occurrence was denied by him.
8. Muhammad Yusuf P.W.8 while corroborating the statement made by P.W.7, also claimed to have witnessed the collection of blood-stained earth and bicycle of the deceased from the spot recovery of hatchet P.6 at the instance of Safdar appellant, dagger at the instance of Shaukat Ali appellant and hatchet P.8 at the instance of Abdullah (acquitted accused). During cross- examination he denied that the dagger was not stained with blood. On confrontation with recovery memo. Exh.P.G. The dagger was not noted to have been stained with blood. While admitting that residents of the locality had reached at the time of recovery of weapons, he also conceded that there were three Lumberdars in their village. While denying that, it was a blind murder, committed during night, Ite admitted that people had assembled at the spot at the time when the Investigating Officer had prepared the inquest report. He denied the suggestion that the Investigating Officer had not cited independent persons of the locality as witnesses, on account of their version being false.
9. Masroor Ahmad, S.H.O., who had recorded complaint Exh.P.C arrested all the three accused and submitted the challan to Court, after recoveries of weapons and after completion of investigation, appeared as P.W.11 and deposed those facts in detail. During cross-examination he admitted that he had not obtained the signatures of the respectable at page 4 of the inquest report nor had mentioned their names even. He denied the suggestion that he had challenged the accused at the instance of the complainant party without investigating the case fairly. The statement of the remaining P.Ws. Are more or less of a formal nature.
10. Reports Exhs.P.O. And P.Q. From the Office of the Chemical Examiner and Exhs.P.R. And P.S. From the Office of the Serologist were tendered in evidence.
11. The appellants and Abdullah (acquitted accused) during their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. While admitting their inter se relationship, denied the .Prosecution case as a whole and pleaded innocence. They neither made statements on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor adduced any evidence in defence.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants after having taken me through the evidence, criticised the impugned judgment and contended that the prosecution had failed to prove motive for the occurrence; that the ocular account coming from related and interested P.Ws., is, not worthy, acting upon and that, as the recoveries of weapons of offence have been deposed to, apart from the Investigating Officer, by an eye-witness, who was real paternal-uncle of the deceased, the same also do not inspire confidence. Learned counsel contended that the ocular account in this base does not find corroboration from any other evidence and so it would be highly unsafe to maintain the convictions of the appellants on capital charge.
13. Learned counsel for the State/complainant defended the judgment of the trial Court and submitted that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case against the appellants beyond any shadows of doubt. Learned counsel for the complainant while arguing the revision petition against acquittal of Abdullah, contended that the distinction drawn by learned trial Judge for recording acquittal of Abdullah was not justified and so he also deserved to be taken to task for having committed the offence.
14. The occurrence had taken place on 7-00 a.m. At a distance of one acre from the Village Abadi.
The nearest abode, of anyone from the place of occurrence, was the Dharies of Sikandar and Waryam etc. They were also at a distance of 40 Karams. There is no evidence that anyone from the Dharies was present around the Dharies or the place of occurrence. In the circumstances the question of anyone else than the P.Ws. Named in the F.I.R. Of having witnessed the occurrence, does not arise. As such, the argument that the complainant had excluded the independent witnesses from coming forth, was without any basis.
15. No doubt, the complainant is the father of the deceased while Muhammad Yusuf P.W.8 is uncle of the deceased, yet mere relationship of the P.Ws. With the deceased, in this case, was not of much consequence as the appellants at no stage of the trial, alleged that they were inimically disposed towards them before the occurrence in any manner. Actually they denied even the motive alleged for the occurrence. That being so, independent posture of the P.Ws. Becomes apparent.
16. The stance of the appellants put to the P.Ws. During cross-examination that the deceased was done to death by someone as a thief or trespasser was also a stroke in the wilderness, as the deceased was murdered at a place where there was nothing to be stolen. He was murdered near the passage on which he was travelling to his shop. There was no question of his having trespassed even.
17. The argument that none of the P.Ws. Had witnessed the occurrence was also without any force.
In that, if the complainant and the other witnesses had not been with the deceased at the time of occurrence the occurrence could not have been reported so promptly, i,e, within one hour. In that case, it would have taken some time for the complainant to make inquiries about the actual culprits and sound some persons to become eye-witnesses.
The claim of Shahadat Ali complainant and P.W. Muhammad Yusuf, therefore, of having witnessed the occurrence, 'cannot be discarded for any reason.
18. The ocular account finds corroboration from the recoveries of bloodstained weapons at the instance of both the appellants. The same has not only been deposed to by Muhammad Yusuf P.W.8, but was also deposed to by the Investigating Officer, who had no bias or enmity against the appellants.
19. The motive set up for the occurrence and the medical evidence in turn also lends corroboration to the prosecution version of the occurrence. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal.
The same is dismissed.
20. However, keeping in view the fact that both the appellants were not earning members by themselves, the sentence of fine of Rs,10,000 awarded to each of them, is reduced to Rs,5,000 (Rs, five thousand) in the case of each. However, they will suffer R.I. For one year each on their failure to pay the fine. The fine on recovery, shall also be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
21. The respondent in the revision petition is the father of the convicts. He was stated to be sixty- two, at the time of trial. The weapon recovered from him was not found stained with blood. If the weapons recovered from his sons were found bearing human blood, the hatchet alleged to have been recovered from him would have also been found bearing human blood because the same was also alleged to have been used as his sons had done. It cannot be assumed that the father cleared the blood from the weapon, and did not advise his sons to do so, particularly so when all the weapons were recovered from the same house.
Considering all aspects of the case I do not find any merit in the revision petition, calling for setting aside of judgment of acquittal. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court for interfering with the judgment of acquittal are not attracted to this case. The revision petition, is, therefore, dismissed being without merit.