' MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.---This order will dispose of Criminal Petition No,78 of 1999 and Jail Petition No,67 of 1999.
2. Muhammad Nazir convict not before us, his son Muhammad Jehangir petitioner in Jail Petition No,67 of 1999 and his brother Fazal Dad petitioner in Criminal Petition No,78 of 1999 were tried for the offences under sections 302 and 324, P.P,C., by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi.
Muhammad Jehangir and Fazal Dad petitioners were convicted under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. And were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,10,000. Both of them were further convicted under section 324, P.P,C. And were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eleven years and fine of Rs,1000 each. Muhammad Nazir accused was found guilty of effective attempt to commit Qatl-i-Amd of the Mst. Nargis Bibi, (P.W.7) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs,10,000; half of which was directed to be paid as Arsh to Mst. Nargis Bibi injured witness or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years. All the convicts were, however, held entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. All the three convicts filed Criminal Appeal No,1 of 1994 before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. By judgment dated 25-1-1999 of the High Court, convictions recorded against and sentences awarded to the convicts-petitioners were maintained and in consequence their appeal was dismissed.
3. The murder of Muhammad Inayat deceased, according to the prosecution, was witnessed by Mst. Nargis Bibi (P.W.7) and Walayat Hussain (P.W.8) who were the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Raza Ali Khan, S.I. (P.W.15) then posted as S.I. At Police Station, Rawat, had appeared to testify to the correctness of his investigation of the case.
4. The motive for the occurrence was that there had been an incident of exchange of abuses between the deceased and the convict-petitioners over the placing of thorny hedge on the path in front of the houses of the convict-petitioners.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution, as stated earlier, examined apart from Walayat Hussain complainant (P.W.8), Mst. Nargis Bibi (P.W.7). These two eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution case duly set up in F.I.R. No, 177/91. Doctor Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.16) examined Muhammad Inayat while injured and found a bruise of the size of 1 x 1 cm on the right cheek and three lacerated wounds of different sizes with blackening around injury No,2. The same medical officer also examined the same day Mst. Nargis Bibi (P.W.7) and found a multiple small lacerated wound 2.5 x 2.5 c.m. On the right upper chest. Two small lacerated wounds 2.5 x 2.5 on the top of the right shoulder and another on front of neek with swelling and a lacerated wound also of the same size on the middle aspect of right deltoid region.
6. Dr. Naseer-ur-Din (P.W.1) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Inayat and noted the following injuries on his dead body:--
1. A horizontal stitched wound 1.2 c.m. Long on right side of front of abdomen.
2. A stitched wound 5 c.m. Long on left side of front of the abdomen.
3. A long stitched wound 2.7 c.m. Long extending from epigastrium to hypogastrium.
4. A lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. On left side of lateral aspect of chest in mid axillary line.
7. The convict-petitioner and their co-accused Muhammad Nazir were arrested after 9 days of the occurrence on 28-7-1991. During the investigation all the three accused got recovered their respective weapons, namely, sort gun .12 bore gun by Fazal Dad, .12 bore carbine by Muhammad Jehangir and .12 bore gun by Muhammad Nazir on 6-8-1991.
8. The convicts-petitioners and their co-accused Muhammad Nazir, when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Professed their innocence and attributed their false implication by (P.W.8) Walayat Hussain. When asked as to why this case had been registered against them and why the P.Ws. Had deposed against them, the convicts-petitioners explained it as under:-- "There is factionalism in the village. The P.Ws. Belong to the complainant party. They have falsely involved us in the case. The area is well-known for the visitors who used to came for hunting. It is common in the village talk that the complainant party had a dispute with some unknown hunters resulting in firing. We are innocent and have been falsely charged on the grounds of against us."
9. The learned trial Judge after detailed appraisal of evidence adduced by the prosecution for bringing home the guilt of the convict-petitioner came to the conclusion that from the ocular account of occurrence not only motive part of the prosecution case was established but also the eye-witness account of occurrence was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The ocular testimony of the two eye witnesses, according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, lent ample support not only from the medical evidence but also from the recoveries. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, found the convict petitioners and Muhammad Nazir their co-accused guilty of the murder of the deceased in furtherance of their common intention and sentenced them to imprisonment for life, fines and compensation.
10. The learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, as stated earlier, dismissed the joint appeal filed by the convicts-petitioners and their co-accused Muhammad Nazir and maintained the convictions and sentences detailed in the above terms.
11. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Uns, learned Advocate Supreme Court, in seeking leave to appeal contended, firstly, that the motive set up in the F.I.R. And sought to be substantiated by evidence of Mst. Nargis Bibi (P.W.7) and Walayat Hussain (P.W.8) is not only farfetched but is also not real and that having set up wrong motive it would cast deep shadow of doubt on the integrity of the prosecution case; secondly that the presence of Mst. Nargis (P.W.7) at the spot was doubtful that in all probability she had been injured somewhere else but had been introduced in the case with a view to lending support from a so-called disinterested witness. In this context, learned counsel was further astonished that the real uncle at the time of occurrence has not raised hue and cry but Mst.
Nargis Bibi who was an unrelated female had raised alarm which was not only improbable but against human nature. It was next contended that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 12 miles but the report was lodged after long delay of four hours which suggests pre-consultation and prevarication. Last but not the least he reiterated the stance taken by the convicts-petitioners that they have been involved due to factionalism in the village and that the area where the occurrence had taken place was well-known for hunting; that it was rumoured in the village that those hunters after exchange of hot words between them and the deceased had fired the deceased of death.
12. The learned counsel appearing in support of the titled petition, has not been able to highlight the implication of the motive either as farfetched or not the real motive. He has, however, placed reliance on the case of Habibullah and others v. The State (PLD 1969 SC 127) in support of his submission. The ratio of the judgment in the case of Habibullah is deducible from para.3 at page 130 of the report which is as under:- "In ordinary human conduct where killing takes place by design, it is not without a motive strong or weak. This is not to say that murders are not committed want only without any motive whatsoever.
Motiveless murders do occur owing to mad or reckless acts of inhuman nature. Sometimes a motive lies mysteriously hidden in the mind of the killer with no means to dig it out on the surface.
But it may be stated as a rule of prudence in judging human conduct that where a motive is alleged by the prosecution which is found to be false, it becomes all the more necessary to scrutinize the credentials of the witnesses who by their evidence direct or indirect speak about the guilt of an accused person on the premises of a false motive. In the present case the alleged motive being absent and found to be untrue, the Courts should have been very much on their guard to accept the story of the prosecution of which the motive was an important constituent and which depended for its acceptance on the statement of a single witness who supported that story including the motive."
13. The principle laid down in the para, reproduced ante is that where a motive is alleged by the prosecution but is found to be false, it would be essential for the Court to scrutinize the credentials of the witnesses who by their evidence deposed as to the guilt of an accused person. It has nowhere been laid down that the case of the prosecution is rendered doubtful if the motive is either far fetched or is not real or is not proved. What is required is that in such an eventuality the veracity of the witnesses warrants a deep scrutiny of their evidence. We have not been convinced that in the instant case, the learned trial Judge or for that matter the learned Single Judge of the High Court had, in any way, not appraised the evidence of the eye-witnesses in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court for the appraisal of evidence in a case on a capital charge.
The first contention of the learned counsel having no merit is repelled. In so far as the second argument is concerned that Mst. Nargis Bibi (P.W.7)'s presence at the spot was doubtful or that it was strange for the learned counsel that the real uncle had not raised hue and cry but she had by raising alarm rendered herself unreliable is also without any substance. She bears the stamp of injury on her person and it would be futile to assume that she had been injured somewhere else and had been introduced to testify to the occurrence in the case. Besides, she is admittedly an unrelated witness and worthy of complete reliance. It would not be absolutely surprising that she had raised alarm instead of Walayat Hussain (P.W.8) who is the real uncle of the deceased. This contention having no weight at all is equally untenable. The alleged delay which had occurred in the registration of the case would have been relevant if there had been any doubt in the identification of the culprits. In the instant case, the complainant party in general and Walayat Hussain (P.W.8) in particular thoroughly knew the convict-petitioners and Nazir their co-accused.
The contention of delay in lodging the reports, therefore, of no consequence. Lastly, the theory that the area where the occurrence had taken place was well-known for hunting and that according to the rumors in the village some hunters had exchanged abuses with the deceased and that, therefore, the hunters had fired the deceased to death is fantastic, It appears to be a simply cock and bull story.
14, In our opinion, the prosecution story appears to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The two eye-witnesses of the occurrence were completely worthy of reliance particularly Mst, Nargis Bibi (P.W,8) who is not only absolutely independent but also bears the stamp of injuries on her person. Similarly Walayat Hussain (P.W.8) no doubt is the uncle of the deceased but this relationship per se does not turn him into an interested witness because he is not shown to have got any animus for false charge. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the incident of broad daylight was witnessed by the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution case that the convicts-petitioners and Nazir co-accused were the persons who caused the death of the deceased had been successfully brought home to the convict-petitioners.
15. After carefully going through the evidence produced on the record that the convicts-petitioners and Nazir their co-convict had killed the deceased and, therefore, they were rightly convicted under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. For the murder of the deceased Muhammad Inayat and section 324, P.P.C, read with section 34, P.P.C. For the effective attempt at the life of Mst. Nargis.
Bibi (P.W.7). The case against the convicts-petitioners and Nazir their co-convict has been proved to the hilt.
16, In the result, the titled Criminal Petition No,78 of 1999 and J.P. No,67 of 1999 filed by the petitioners are dismissed.