' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.--- Shah Nawaz appellant and his uncle Muhammad Farid acquitted co- accused, both residents of village Paswal District Abbottabad, were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, for the murder of Mst. Amraizan Jan wife of Muhammad Riaz (30/35) of the same residence. Vide judgment, dated 7-12-1999 Shah Nawaz having been found guilty under section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code, was sentenced to pay Diyat amount of Rs,2,75,670 to the legal heirs of the deceased according to their shares qua inheritance. He was further sentenced to suffer five years' R.I. As Ta'zir. The convict-appellant was directed to be kept in jail till the payment of Diyat (in full) and dealt with in the same manner as if sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment until further order of the Court. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also given to him. The other accused namely Muhammad Farid was extended benefit of doubt and acquitted.
3. Appellant Shah Nawaz, feeling aggrieved has filed Criminal Appeal No,77 of 1999 challenging the conviction and sentence. Complainant Muhammad Nawaz and his brother Muhammad Riaz, husband of the deceased have also filed Criminal Revision No,3 of 2000, seeking enhancement of the sentence of the appellant.
4. Since the appeal and the revision petition have arisen out of the same judgment, therefore, we propose to dispose of the same through this consolidated judgment.
5. According to complainant Muhammad Nawaz, on the day of occurrence, i,e, 2-6-1998 he was present in his thrashing flour alongwith his father Gul Zaman, when he was informed by Muhammad Shafique that some noise was coming from their house. Having reached the house the complainant found Mst. Amraizan Jan wife of his brother Muhammad Riaz lying injured on a cot. The women-folk of the village had gathered around the cot. On inquiry he was informed by daughter of the victim, namely, Abida Shaheen and Rafida Shaheen P.Ws. That Shah Nawaz accompanied by Muhammad Farid had come to their house at about 17-30 hours and they gave beating to the victim with fists and kicks blows. Then Shah Nawaz at the instigation of Muhammad Farid threw the victim down to the ground from the roof top of the house. The daughters of the injured named above were stated to have seen the occurrence. A quarrel between the women-folk of the two families stated to have taken place a day prior to the incident in question, was stated to be the motive for the turmoil. The victim was immediately rushed to the hospital where a report (Exh.P.A./1) in the shape of the Mad. No,48 was recorded by M.H.C. Muhammad Amin. It was incorporated into F.I.R. Exh.P.A. By A.S.-I. Shamroz Khan P.W. A case under section 336/34, P.P.C. Was registered against the accused-persons vide F.I.R. No,239, dated 2-6-1993 Police Station Miripur.
6. Lady Dr. Qamar Jabeen and Lady Dr. Fozia Jabeen of Ayub Medical Complex, Abbottabad examined the injured. Unfortunately the victim succumbed to her injuries and expired in the hospital on 6-6-1998. Lady Dr. Qamar Jabeen conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased the same day at 8-30 a.m. And on external appearance found symptoms quaedrupliqio.
Swelling was also found all around the neck. Haemotoma was present on the vertex. On internal examination vertebrae was found fractured, dislocated/cervical. In the opinion of the lady doctor the cause of death was injury to the vital organs, i,e, brain with subdural haemotoma with fracture.
Time between injury and death was found to be approximately 3 to 3-1/2 days and between death and post-mortem 12 to 24 hours.
7. M.H.C. Muhammad Amin P.W. Conducted preliminary investigation and prepared site plan Exh.P.B. At the instance of eyewitnesses. He recorded statements of P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C.
He also recorded statement of the victim in the hospital. Inspector Sadiq Hussain P.W. Conducted partial investigation, placed on record the postmortem report arrested Shah Nawaz on 9-6-1998, changed sections of law from 336/34, P.P.C. To 302/34, P.P.C. And submitted complete challan against the accused on 15-6-1998.
8. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced 10 witnesses out of whom P.Ws. Mst. Abida Shaheen and Mst. Rafia Shaheen furnished eye-witness account of the incident and charged the appellant and acquitted co-accused for the guilt. P.W. Muhammad Nawaz supported the prosecution version and claimed to have been apprised of the incident by the daughters of the deceased, named, above.
9. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been falsely charged on account of previous enmity between the two families. In their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The accused also refuted the prosecution allegations and professed innocence. They produced no evidence in defence and declined to be examined on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
10. We have heard Mr. Saeed Akhtar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Ayub, Assistant Advocate-General for the State assisted by Mr. Abdullah Khan Tanoli, Advocate for the complainant. We have also gone through the evidence with their able assistance.
11. Criticising the prosecution case, learned counsel for the appellant raised the point of delay in lodging of the F.I.R. And attempted to argue that Mst. Abida Shaheen and Mst. Rafia Shaheen P.Ws.
Were not present at the spot and had not seen the occurrence. He also submitted that medical evidence does not support the prosecution story and motive is shrouded in mystery. The learned counsel further reiterated that womenfolk of the adjoining houses are stated to have attracted to the spot and seen the occurrence but no independent and impartial witness has been examined to lend support to the prosecution case except P.Ws. Mst. Abida and Mst. Rafia who are daughters of the deceased. The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of the mentioned girls has been disbelieved by the trial.Court qua acquitted co-accused whereas the same has been made basis of conviction in respect of the appellant which clearly tends to suggest that the evidence has not been properly evaluated and the judicial mind has not been applied. The learned counsel also reiterated that the actual fight started in between the women-folk of both the parties and as a result of that quarrel, Mst. Amraizan Bibi all of a sudden fell down from the roof top of her house and got injured and the complainant party due to ulterior motive and previous enmity charged the accused for the guilt. In the last limb'of arguments the learned counsel contended that when the injured was brought to the hospital for medical treatment she was in full senses and in a position to make report herself and there was no occasion for P.W. Muhammad Nawaz to approach the police and lodge the report. This fact alone, the learned counsel added, is sufficient to cast doubt in one's mind regarding participation of the accused in the commission of crime. In support of his submissions the learned counsel placed reliance on 1991 SCM R 2270 and 1984 PCr.LJ 1237.
12. Learned counsel for the State, conversely supported the impugned judgment and prayed for its sustenance. However, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the appellant has not been adequately punished by the learned trial Judge and thus, the conviction and sentence may be converted into death in order to meet the ends of justice. Reliance was placed on 2001 SCM R 199, 1994 SCM R 1928 and 1997 PCr.LJ 432.
13. It is recognized principle of law that in criminal administration of justice evidence furnished by interested witnesses related to the victim or deceased cannot be discard-1 merely for the reason that the witness has relationship with the victim. However, the Courts have emphasized that in such-like situations efforts must be made to seek corroboration from other evidence available on record. As far as corroboration is concerned, it dots not mean that it should come from an independent witness but anything in the circumstance which tends to satisfy the Court that the witness has spoken truth can safely be considered to be corroborative evidence. Din Muhammad v.
The Crown 1969 SCM R 777. There could be cases in which the witness is closely related to the deceased but still his evidence has been accepted because there was consistency in his testimony and it was getting corroboration from other pieces of evidence available on record.
14. In the instant case it is true that the eye-witnesses, namely, Mst. Abida and Mst. Rafia are daughters of the victim of assault but it is equally true that they have given a straightforward and confidence inspiring account of the occurrence. They have emerged from a lengthy and protracted cross-examination as truthfulness and nothing of any significance was elicited from them which would in any way detract from the massive weight of their testimony. The crime in question has taken place inside the house of the complainant at broad daylight. The witnesses named above are inhabitants of the house. Their presence at the relevant time is natural and cannot be doubted. We do not agree with learned counsel for the appellant that at the relevant time the mentioned witnesses were not present in the house and had not seen the occurrence. We may pause here to mention that the appellant and the acquitted co-accused are closely related to the complainant party. Apparently there seems to be no reason for false implication. The mere fact that the appellant is employed in a Bank and has social status in the society by itself, cannot be considered a good ground for his false implication. There are, no doubt, some minor discrepancies in the deposition of eyewitnesses but this is not sufficient to label them as completely untruthful witnesses. In our Opinion, the inconsistencies referred to by the learned counsel are of inconsequential nature and they cannot reasonably be considered as good ground for disbelieving independent and disinterested witnesses. If importance be given to such insignificant inconsistencies there can hardly be any conviction for seldom is there a witness whose evidence does not suffer from such inconsistencies.
15. Adverting to the objection raised by learned counsel for the appellant that no independent and disinterested witness has been examined from the locality we find that the mere fact that nobody from the locality had come forward to depose against the appellant would not be material, keeping in view the social condition prevalent in our society where strangers avoid to poke their nose in the bloody affairs of other people. Yaqoob Shah v. The State PLD 1976 SC 53 and Muhammad Iqbal v. The State PLD 1976 SC 291.
16. Much emphasis has been laid on the point that the report has been lodged with unexplainable delay which adversely affects the prosecution case. It is not denied that undue, unreasonable and unexplained delay in filing F.I.R. Leads to suspicion and reflects on the truth of the prosecution case and earlier information of crime is required to be supplied in order to avoid criticism of the report as being manipulated and result of deliberations and consultations but in the E present case we find that the report has been filed promptly without loss of time.
17. The medical evidence is alleged to be in direct conflict with the prosecution story. Immediately after the occurrence the victim was removed to the hospital and she was examined. The victim complained of pain and swelling was found around her neck. The death was also opined to have been caused due to injury to the vital organ, i,e, brain. We failed to understand as to how medical evidence does not support the accusation.
18. Truly, the eye-witness account of the incident supplied the daughters of the deceased has been disbelieved qua acquitted accused whereas the same has been utilized to record conviction of the appellant but the fact cannot be lost sight of that the appellant and his companion have been assigned different roles. The acquitted accused is charged for instigation whereas the appellant is accused of throwing out the victim from the roof top of her house on account of which he sustained injuries resulting in her death. The objection is overruled.
19. A quarrel between the two families, a day prior to the occurrence is stated to be the motive leading to the turmoil. It is true that no satisfactory evidence has been produced by the prosecution to prove motive but it is equally true that omission on the part of the prosecution, cannot be considered a good ground to damage the prosecution case which otherwise stands proved, by independent and reliable evidence.
20. Pursuant to the above discussion we find that the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, and he has been rightly convicted under section 316, P.P.C. However, keeping in view the attending circumstances we reduce the sentence of imprisonment of five years' R.I. To the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant. The sentence of Diyat shall, however, remain in tact. The appellant is on bail. He shall be relieved of the obligations of the bail bonds. The appeal is dismissed with the above modification.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion in the appeal, the revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
Sentence reduced.