' KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, Through this judgment we would like to dispose of Murder Reference No,14 of 1997
2. The occurrence in this case took place on 1-1-1994 at 4-00 p.m. In the area of Chak NcL24/N.P 15 k.m away from Police Station Ahmadpur Lamina, towards east. The matter was reported to the police by Abdul Majeed, father, of Mst. Shazia Parveen (deceased) at 9-30 p.m. Vide complaint Exh.P.E. At Civil Hospital, Sadiqabad, which was recorded by Munir Hussain, A.S.I., of Police Station Ahmadpur Lamma. Formal F.I.R. Exh.P.E/1 was recorded by Moharrer H.C. Of police station at 9-30 p.m.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case as narrated by the complainant in the complaint Exh.P.E. Were that he was resident of Chak No,24/N.P and used to cultivate the land of one Mehmood Hussain as a tenant. On the day of occurrence at about 4-00 p.m. When he was working in the fields and his daughters namely Mst. Shazia Parveen aged 16/17 years and Mst. Shahida Parveen were also present in the vegetable fields at one acre from him. Suddenly Muhammad Akhtar son of Allah Ditta resident of Daulatpur, armed with .12 bore pistol came near his daughters and raised a 'Lalkara' stating therein "today Mst. Shazia Parveen would not be spared". On hue and cry raised by his daughters he ran towards them. Ma.Qsood Ahmad, real brother of the complainant Niamat Ali, who were also present there came to . The place of occurrence. At that moment Muhammad Akhtar accused fired shot on Mst. Shazia Parveen which hit on the back of her left shoulder. Other shot fired by him hit the left shoulder pf Mst. Shazia Parveen, who after receiving these injuries fell down on the ground. Muhammad Akhtar accused threatened the P.Ws.
That if any one tried to become near him, he will be killed in the same manner. Thereafter, Muhammad Akhtar Iran away from the spot along with his pistol.
4. Motive behind the present occurrence was that Muhammad Akhtar appellant few days prior to the present occurrence cut filthy jokes with Mst. Shazia Parveen on which she had abused him.
Muhammad Akhtar appellant had nourished a grudge, so he committed the murder of Mst. Shazia Parveen.
5. After sending the complaint to the police station for the registration of a case, Munir Hussain, A.S.I. Prepared the injury statement Exh.P.C./1, of Mst. Shazia Parveen. On 2-1-1994, when he came to know about the death of Mst. Shazia Parveen (deceased), he prepared an inquest report Exh.P.D./1 and sent her dead body for postmortem examination. On the same day he took into possession the blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo. Exh.P.G. The appellant was arrested on 8-1-1994 by Feroze Ahmad, S.H.O., Police Station Ahmadpur Lamina. On 14-1-1994, appellant Muhammad Akhtar led to the recovery of pistol P.1 in the presence of Gulzar Ahmad and Shaukat All (P.Ws.) from his house which was situated in Basti Daulatpur and took the same into possession vide memo.
Exh.P.A. He recorded the statement of P. Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. And also got recorded the statement of Patwari who prepared the site plan on 22-1-1994. He also prepared the challan and submitted the same in the Court.
6.The prosecution in order to prove its case produced 8 witnesses in all. Thereafter, the learned D,D.A. Tendered in evidence Report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.G regarding blood-stained earth, Exh.P.I., is regarding. Swabs taken from the vagina of Mst. Shazia Parveen which were not stained with semen and Report of Serologist Exh.P.H.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has read before us the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant wherein he claimed false implication on the ground of suspicion. He submits that it was a blind murder as the same was not witnessed by any one. He further submits that Abdul Majeed complainant is real father of Mst. Shazia. Parveen while Niamat All P,W.5 is although, not related to her but belongs to the brotherhood of the complainant, He submits that no crime empty was taken from the spot and there is no Report of Fire-arm Expert in this regard. He submits that recovery of pistol. P.1 has been planted on the appellant. Adds that no case whatsoever is made out against the appellant and he is entitled to acquittal.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the State supports the judgment of the learned trial Court and maintains that the appellant has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court.
8, We have heard the' learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence recorded by the trial Court. The occurrence in this case took place on 1-1-1994 at 4-00 p.m. Mst.
Shazia Parveen was first taken to the hospital for medical treatment where the police reached and got recorded Complaint Exh.P.E. It is a case of single accused. There is no question of substitution.
The occurrence had taken place in broad daylight. There was no question of mistaken identity.
There also no' previous background of enmity between the parties, so there was no question of false implication in this case. Though, Abdul Majeed P.W.4 complainant in the instant case is father of Mst. Shazia Parveen but he is a natural witness because he was present in the near fields of vegetables where Mst. Shazia Parveen was present, Niamat Ali P.W. Though belongs to the brotherhood of the complainant but he is an impartial and `uninterested witness. There is no earthly . Reason to disbelieve both these witnesses. Blood-stained earth was taken from the spot where the occurrence had taken place according to the prosecution and the same was stained with human blood according to the Report of Chemical Examiner and also according to the Report of Serologist i.e Exhs.P.G. And P.H. Recovery of Pistol was also done at the pointation of the appellant although, no crime empty was taken from the spot. The act of the appellant was a dare devil one He caused-two injuries on the person of Mst, Shazia Parveen an 'innocent girl aged about 15 years and. According to Doctor Muhammad Mubashir Chaudhary, one of the injury was oat the back of left shoulder with burning of the surrounding skin while injury No,2 was on the back of left side of chest and back of left arm. Seven large pellets were found from the wounds. According to the Doctor injuries Nos .1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature In our view the prosecution has proved its case through ocular account which came trout an unimpeachable source and is corroborated by medical evidence, and motive about the present occurrence furnished by the complainant. There is no' mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant. Keeping in view all the above said circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly awarded death sentence to the appellant. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court is.
Upheld and sentence awarded to the appellant ' is maintained with the addition to pay compensation of Ra.50.000 (fifty thousand) to the legal heirs of the deceased after issuing notice to the learned counsel for the defence who accepted the same or in default thereof 6 months' S.I.
Resultantly, the death sentence awarded to the appellant is confirmed and the Murder Reference is replied in the affirmative. With these observations the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
Death sentence awarded to the appellant is confirmed.