' Appellant Haji Umar Khan son of Sahar Jan resident of Inayat Mithakhel, Tehsil and District Bannu, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bannu (Mr. Abdul Sattar Khan) under section 193, P.P.C. And sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. Additionally he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 (Ten thousand) or in default thereof to undergo further S.I. For a period of one year.
2. Aggrieved, the appellant has challenged the legality/validity of the said judgment and has filed this appeal under section 410, read with section 476(4)(b), Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand, Akbar Zaman, the brother of the deceased has filed a revision petition (No,8 of 1997) against the said judgment for the enhancement of the sentence awarded to appellant Haji Umar Khan and has prayed that the sentence so awarded be enhanced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.
4. Since the appeal and the revision petition are the outcome of the same judgment, therefore, I propose to dispose of both the matters by this judgment.
5. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that one Falak Naz Khan (the brother of Akbar Zaman, petitioner in revision petition) was killed by GuI Manzoor Shah etc. With klashnikovs. Accordingly a report was lodged against all of them by appellant Haji Umar Khan at Police Station, Mandan, Tehsil and District Bannu. On the basis of the said report F.I.R. No,50 was registered on 3-2-1995 under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. The case was investigated into by the local police and after the completion of the usual investigation complete challan was submitted against them in the Sessions Court.
6. The Sessions Judge commenced the trial, framed the charge and examined some of the prosecution witnesses When appellant (Haji Umar Khan) was examined on oath as P.W.6 by the trial Court on 2-10-1996, he stated on oath that he had not lodged the F.I.R. (Exh.P.A./1) on his own.
For the sake of convenience the relevant portion of his statement is reproduced below:- . I have not seen the occurrence nor the accused making firing as I was confined inside my house Self added that the accused are completely innocent and they have been falsely charged and I am being compelled to give false evidence against them .... I have seen the report Exh.P.A./1 in the shape of Murasila which correctly bears my signature. It is correct to suggest that I have made this report to the Investigating Officer in the village/not seen any one and I was told by the police to give such like statement as mentioned in the report Exh.P.A./1 which .... It is incorrect to suggest that I am again giving a false statement in this regard ... I have heard the contents of the report today in the Court which I disown because I have not given such a statement to the Investigating Officer.
Self added that in fact this story was given by Akbar Zaman etc. But I was asked to sign the same. I did accordingly.... The statement in the report Exh.P.A./1 was narrated in my presence to the Investigating Officer by Akbar Zaman and I was asked to sign the same which I did accordingly.
Even I had not made any complaint against the Investigating Officer for obtaining my signature on the report in the manner so stated above. It is incorrect to suggest that I have been paid Rs,2,50,000 by the accused for resiling from my statement/F.I.R. And it is further incorrect that before starting the deal with the accused they have also threatened to kill my major son if I do not resile from my statement. It is also incorrect to suggest that I have perjured myself while giving false statement on oath. ... The report was not read over to me by the Investigating Officer while obtaining my signature on it."
(The underlining is mine)
7. The Sessions Judge, after the perusal of the record was, however, of the view that not only that Haji Umar Khan had lodged the F.I.R. As a complainant but that he had also signed the same in token of its correctness. The Sessions Judge, therefore, charged the appellant under section 193, P.P.C. The charge was duly read over and explained to him. The appellant, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Mir Payo Khan, Reader of the Sessions Judge, Bannu, was examined as P.W.1 on oath. He produced the certified copies of F.I.R. No,50 registered on 3-2-1995 (Exh.P.A./1) and the statement of Haji Umar Khan, P.W.1 was not cross-examined by the appellant. The Sessions Judge then examined the appellant and recorded his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He professed innocence and stated that he had given the true account of the occurrence in his statement recorded during the trial because he was bound to do so morally. He, however, refused to produce any evidence in his defence or appear as his own witness and record his statement under section'
340(2), Cr.P.C. In disproof of the charges levelled against him.
9. After taking into consideration the prosecution evidence and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above. Hence this appeal.
10. Mr. Gauhar Zaman Khan Kundi, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Muhammad Khan Khakwani, Advocate, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Dost Muhammad Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for Akbar Zaman brother of deceased present and heard at length. I have also perused the record of the case carefully.
11. A perusal of the statement of P.W.1 as well as the impugned judgment would show that the trial Court has discussed the facts of the case in detail and has given valid reasons for its conclusion.
The judgment of the Sessions Judge is neither arbitrary nor perverse and, therefore, cannot be interfered with by this Court. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Sessions Judge has not applied his mind while deciding this case. It is evident from the record of the case that the First Information Report (Copy Exh.P.A./1) registered under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. Was in fact lodged by the appellant. It is also apparent from the record that after the registration of the case, usual police investigation was carried out and later, complete challan was submitted in the trial Court against Niaz Ali Shah and others. When the appellant was examined on oath he stated that he had not lodged any report. In other words he resiled from his earlier. Statement. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the appellant was rightly convicted/ sentenced by the trial Court. No exception can be taken to the impugned judgment. A person who deliberately tells a lie during the solemn proceedings of a Court of law, knowing fully well that he is thereby likely to ruin the life/ reputation of an innocent citizen or jeopardise his liberty by falsely involving him in a criminal case, does not deserve any leniency and ought never; be left off lightly. It was held by an Honourable Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Mst. Karim Khatoon v. The State reported as PLD 1984 SC 44 comprising of His Lordship Mr. Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain and Mr. Justice Nasim Hassan Shah, as under:-- "Perjury is one of the most heinous social and moral offences. It is not only an offence punishable under the law but is also against the injunction of the Holy Qur'an. It is an evil which tends to disrupt the very basis of the social order and make a mockery of the judicial system, be it Islamic or otherwise. Any person who deliberately tells a lie during the solemn proceedings of a Court of law, knowing fully well that he is thereby likely to ruin the life or reputation of an innocent person or Put into jeopardy his liberty by falsely involving him in a criminal case or cause damage to his property, does not deserve any leniency and ought never be let off lightly.
' The tendency on the part of the Courts to take a light view of such cases has, over the decades, tended to encourage perjury in our Courts, with the result that it has now become so common that witnesses do not feel any qualms of conscience. While making a false statement in a Court of law and have ceased to consider it as an act involving any moral turpitude. The Courts must arrest this tendency with a firm hand and so every Court in their power to eradicate this evil from its roots.
Awarding stiffer sentences would be a positive step in this direction."
12. In the instant case the appellant has admittedly perjured himself and deserves no leniency whatsoever. In fact he has been dealt with leniently by the I C trial Court which had awarded him lesser punishment. This appeal has no substance and is accordingly dismissed. Since the appellant is a sick person being a heart patient, therefore, I would not like to enhance the punishment already awarded to him. The criminal revision petition is also dismissed.