' Ghulam Shabbir, Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala, Fazal Abbas, Akhtar Abbas sons of Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Aslam alias Acchhu, Muhammad. Jamil sons of Saeed-ud-Din, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Nazir alias Mirza sons of Barkat Ali, Ghulam Nabi alias Gama son of Khair Din, Zulfiqar Ali son of Rehmat Ali, and Ijaz Mahmood son of Khushi. Muhammad were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Sheikhupura for committing mactation of Khuda Bakhsh and causing injuries to Muhammad Hanif and Mauj Din P. Ws. The learned trial Judge by virtue of his judgment dated 23-12-1992 found Ghulam Shabbir, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Aslam alias Acchhu, Zulfiqar and Ijaz Mahmood guilty of the said charge, convicted them under sections 302/149, P.P.C.
And sentenced them to imprisonment for life each with a fine of Rs,10,000 each or in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. They were also convicted under sections 435/149, P.P.C. And sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each with a fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default thereof to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Half of fine, if realized, was ordered to be paid to legal heirs of the deceased by way of compensation.
Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was accorded to them. The said learned Judge however. By giving benefit of doubt to Fazal Abbas, Akhtar Abbas, Nazir Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Jamil and Ghulam Nabi acquitted them of the said charge.
2. The convicts by filing the instant appeal have approached this Court to call in question convictions and sentences passed against them.
3. Occurrence of the alleged incident took place on 8-11-1988 at about 9-00 a.m. Within the Revenue Estate of village Khori, situate at a distance of four miles from Police Station Muridke, District Sheikhupura. The matter stood reported by Niaz Ahmad complainant (P.W.13) to Baqir Hussain, S.-I./S.H.O. (P.W.18) at the police station on the same day at 9-25 a.m. The said official as per dictation of the complainant drew up formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.W.) without any addition or substraction on his part.
4. Prosecution story as revealed through the contents of the F.I.R. (Exh.P.W.) registered at the instance of Niaz Ahmad son of Chanan Din, caste Gujar, resident of village Khori, is that he owned 30/35 acres of agricultural land in village Khori, out of which eight and a half acres were surrounded by the land of Muhammad Yousaf son of Ghulam Muhammad, his co-villager.
Muhammad Yousaf tried to acquire said land by using various tactics. The complainant did not agree to his offers. About one month before, Muhammad Yousaf alongwith his sons, namely Ghulam Shabbir, Iqbal alias Bala, Fazal Abbas, Akhtar Abbas and other hooligans fired at house of the complainant to harass him, for which a case under sections 148/307/452/149, P.P.C. Stood registered against them and the said accused were arrested. The complainant in order to avoid quarrels and for the purpose of cultivation of his land obtained two and a half acres of land on lease from one Rehm Din of the same village. He carved a passage to his land by throwing pebbles in the Sem Nullah. On the fateful day, he alongwith Mauj Din, Muhammad Hanif tractor driver, Muhammad Jamil, also a tractor driver, Khuda Bakhsh and his son Suleman reached his land after hiring the tractors. At about 9-00 a.m., Ghulam Shabbir, Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala, armed with rifles, Fazal Abbas, Akhtar Abbas, armed with .12 bore guns, Muhammad Aslam alias Acchhu, Bashir Ahmed, Zulfiqar, armed with carbines. Muhammad Jamil, carrying a hatchet, Nazir Ahmad alias Mirza, armed with gun, Ghulam Nabi alias Gama carrying a Sota and Ijaz Mahmood, armed with 7 mm rifle reached there. Ghulam Nabi alias Gama and Muhammad Jamil were also carrying bottles in their hands, Ghulam Shabbir exhorted a Lalkara to the effect that Niaz Ahmad Lambardar complainant to teach a lesson for ploughing his land. Khuda Bakhsh stepped forward, addressing Ghulam Shabbir that they are ploughing their own land and that they should not commit excesses with Niaz Ahmad Lambardar, but he did not pay any heed to his request. He inflicted a blow with butt end of his rifle on head of Khuda Bakhsh and asked him to move aside. On receipt of this injury, Khuda Bakhsh fell down. Thereafter, Ghulam Shabbir and his compatriots started firing at the complainant side with a view to kill them. Iqbal alias Bala fired a shot through his rifle, which landed on right shoulder of Mauj Din. Nazir Ahmad alias Mirza made a fire hitting right arm of Muhammad Hanif. The shots fired by Akbar Abbas and Muhammad Aslam alias Acchhu also hit right arm and face of Muhammad Hanif, respectively. The remaining accused started firing on the complainant side. The complainant ran towards Sem Nullah in order to save his life. Ghulam Shabbir asked Muhammad Jamil and Ghulam Nabi to sprinkle oil on the tractors. They accordingly did so.
Thereafter, Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala set one tractor and Fazal Abbas the other tractor on fire.
Bashir Ahmad, Zulfiqar and Ijaz Mahmood continued firing. The shots fired by them also hit the tractors. Ghulam Shabbir, Fazal Abbas, Iqbal alias Bala and Nazir Ahmad alias Mirza accused took Khuda Bakhsh forcibly towards their Dera. According to the complainant, all the accused after counselling with each other attacked him and his companions in order to kill them and to grab his land. They also set the tractors on fire and abducted Khuda Bakhsh. Besides the complainant, Mauj Din, Muhammad Hanif, Khuda Bakhsh, Muhammad Suleman and Muhammad Jamil also witnessed the occurrence.
5. Investigation into the crime commenced forthwith after registration of the case. In the meanwhile Khuda Bakhsh died in the hospital, and upon getting this information, the investigator added section 302, P.P.C. To the list of offences. The police after investigation found the appellants and their co-accused, Fazal Abbas, Akhtar Abbas, Nazir Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Jamil and Ghulam Nabi guilty and challaned them to the Court to face their trial. The prosecution in order to establish charge against the accused produced as many as eighteen witnesses in all and the trial Court examined Muhammad Zaman, D.S.P. As C.W.1.
' Dr. Aamar Ali (P.W.10) performed autopsy on dead body of Khuda Bakhsh and observed four injuries on his person. In his opinion, death occurred due to injury to the brain i,e, injury No,1, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
' Dr. Shahid Masood Bajwa (P.W.11), medically examined Muhammad Hanif and Mauj Din P.Ws. And found six and two injuries on their persons respectively. He prepared their medico-legal reports Exhs.P.R. And P.U., respectively.
' Abdur Rashid, Niaz Ahmad, Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Jamil (P.Ws.12, 13, 14 and 15) are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They furnished full account of the occurrence viewed by them.
They supported the prosecution version in its entirety. Muhammad Saleem (P.W.2) appeared to testify to the factum of recovery of 7 mm rifle (P.1) from Ghulam Shabbir appellant, whereas Bashir Ahmed (P.W.7) testified to the factum of recovery of rifles (P.11 and P.12), carbine (P.13) and a live cartridge (P.14) at the instance of Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala, Ijaz Mahmood, Muhammad Aslam alias Acchhu and Zulfiqar Ali appellants, respectively.
' When no further evidence was left to be adduced, learned prosecutor after tendering in evidence report of the Chemical Examiner (Exh.P.MM) and that of the Serologist (Exh.P.NN) closed case for the prosecution.
6. Now the trial shifted to next important phase, in which the accused were called upon to make their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. To enable them to explain all incriminating evidence adduced against them. They proclaimed their absolute innocence in the matter and alleged their false involvement in the case due to party faction and animosity. They opted not to make statements on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In disproof of the accusations brought against them. They also did not produce evidence in defence.
7. The learned trial Judge after considering totality of facts and circumstances revolving around this matter, pronounced verdict of guilt against the appellants and punished them as aforementioned.
8. The way in which learned counsel for the appellants in his attractive argument to this Court has put the matter is as follows:-- "He submits that the appellants stood implicated in the case due to long-standing animosity, that the prosecution has not produced a single disinterested independent witness in support of this case; that evidence of interested witnesses is not corroborated by the recoveries and that medical evidence also does not fully corroborate the ocular account. He ends his arguments with the submission that since witnesses have made variant statements and some of the nominated accused have been acquitted, so sentence of the appellants may be reduced."
9. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned counsel for the State vehemently argues that it was a day time occurrence and identity of the accused was in no way in doubt; that the F.I.R. Was lodged by the complainant with due haste and chances of fabrication of fictitious tale of occurrence are ruled out; that ocular account is consistent with the medical evidence, which is further corroborated by spot arrest of the appellants except Ghulam Shabbir; that Muhammad Hanif (P.W.14) and Muhammad Jamil (P.W.15) had no reason to furnish false voucher against the appellants and that no mitigating circumstances are in existence and the appellants stood rightly convicted by the trial Court.
10. I have consciously heard and soberly considered respective contentions raised by learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record with their able assistance. Broad features and overall picture of the case as depicted through contents of the F.I.R. Has already been mentioned in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment.
11. The backdrop of the prosecution version as revealed through the evidence is the following:-- ' Khuda Bakhsh deceased of the instant case was husband of sister of Niaz Ahmed complainant (P.W.13). He was resident of village Rajpura. On the fateful day, he was called upon by the complainant to his land to prepare a way leading to his land. Mauj Din P.W. Is brother, whereas Muhammad Suleman P.W. Is son of the complainant, but they have not been produced.
Muhammad Hanif (P.W.14), who is a tractor driver by profession, is resident of village Khori, whereas Muhammad Jamil (P.W.15) is resident of Rajpura. The complainant had sought help of all these persons for ploughing his fields. Reason for the presence of these witnesses at the spot at the relevant time of occurrence is fully explained. The presence of Muhammad Hanif and Mauj Din P.Ws. Is proved beyond any shadow of doubt, as they sustained injuries during occurrence. Niaz Ahmed complainant owns 30/35 acres of landed property in village Khori. Father of Ghulam Shabbir appellant has his land surrounding about eight and a half acres of land of the complainant. The accused side had an eager desire to grab his land. They were told by the complainant in clear cut terms that his land was of much superior quality and for that reason he would not part with his land. About a month prior to the present occurrence, Ghulam Shabbir, Fazal Abbas, Akhtar Abbas and Iqbal alongwith others resorted to firing at house of 'the complainant.
Accordingly a case was got registered against them at Police Station Muridke Ghulam Shabbir and others were arrested by the police during course of investigation. The accused did not permit the complainant to pass through their fields to reach his land. To overcome ',this difficulty, the complainant obtained two and a half acres of land from Reham Din (P.W.1), son of Khair Din on lease and built up a passage thereon to have an easy access to his fields by throwing stones in Nullah Dek. The accused were consistently denying right of way to the complainant side. The complainant then planned to obtain land on lease from Reham Din (P.W.1) and set at the work of making a pathway to reach his fields by throwing pebbles in Nullah Dek. It was indeed a major necessity for the complainant side to do so. The accused wanted to coerce the complainant to surrender his land to them, according to their wishes. This became a core issue between the two sides. The accused had an earnest desire to resist the complainant side from using that way to their fields and to achieve this object they committed the crime in question as the motive in this case had become mature.
12. The next most significant circumstance, which strikes at the very route of the plea of innocence of the appellants, is that Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Aslam, Ijaz Ahmed and Zulfiqar were arrested at the spot by Baqar Hussain, S.-I./S.H.O. (P.W.18), who in his exhaustive statement has narrated the manner and mode of their arrest. His statement inspires confidence and is further corroborated by statement of Bashir Ahmed (P.W.7). Ghulam Shabbir appellant could also be arrested on 8-11-1988, A shortly after registration of the case from his Dera. Spot arrest speaks of involvement of the appellants in the commission of crime in question in high tones. Recovery of weapons was also made from their possession at the time of arrest. During course of spot inspection Baqar Hussain, S.-I./ S.H.O. (P.W.18) secured eight empties of bullets and cartridges each from the spot. This piece of evidence affords maximum corroboration regarding guilt of the accused. Although police did not despatch the recovered weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison purposes, yet the fact remains that the same were recovered from possession of the appellants at the time of their arrest. The prosecution has been able to produce three eye-witnesses, namely, Niaz Ahmed complainant (P.W.13), Muhammad Hanif (P.W.14) and Muhammad Jamil (P.W.15), Muhammad Hanif (P.W.14) is an independent injured P,W., whose presence at the spot cannot be doubted by any stretch of imagination. He had no adverse interest against the appellants. He had no earthly reason to furnish false voucher against the appellants to implicate them wrongly in this case. Muhammad Jamil (P.W.15) like Muhammad Hanif has wholeheartedly supported F.I.R. Version put forth by Niaz Ahmed complainant (P.W.13). Both Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Jamil are wholly independent and disinterested witnesses.
Their presence at the spot has been reasonably explained. They all have attributed fatal injury on head of Khuda Bakhsh deceased to Ghulam Shabbir appellant by butt end of a rifle. Dr. Aamir Ali Chaudhry (P.W.10), who performed autopsy on dead body of Khuda Bakhsh had observed that injury No,1 was a lacerated wound on the left side of top of the head measuring 6.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. 9 c.m. Vertically above the left ear and 1.5 c.m. From the midline. As he further explored this wound, he discovered that frontal bone was fractured. Intra cranial haemorrhage was available in the skull.
Brain was also affected. According to the doctor, injury to brain led to coma and death. The extent of forceful blow delivered by Ghulam Shabbir appellant can well be estimated. It was such a violent blow that skull was fractured and brain damaged. The part played by Ghulam Shabbir appellant coincides with the medical evidence. Khuda Bakhsh deceased was husband of sister of Niaz Ahmed complainant (P.W.13). It cannot be imagined that Niaz Ahmed (P.W.13) will spare actual killer of his brother-in-law just to involve another innocent person. His participation in the occurrence on the strength of ocular account, medical evidence and motive is proved to the hilt. The mere fact that the remaining accused have earned acquittal on the basis of multifarious reasons would not constitute a sufficient ground to smash case of the prosecution qua the appellants.
13. I have studied the case from all angles and find no loophole in the structure of the prosecution case regarding the appellants. I am of the firm view that the prosecution has successfully proved charges against the appellants by production of ocular account, medical evidence, motive and recoveries coupled with spot arrest.
14. Occurrence of the alleged incident took place on 8-11-1988 at about 9-00 a.m. In village Khori, situate at a distance of four miles from Police Station Muridke, District Sheikhupura, F.I.R. Was promptly lodged by Niaz Ahmed (P.W.13) at 9-25 a.m. Directly in the police station. Expeditious registration of case against the appellants is also a circumstance, which cannot be lightly ignored.
The mere fact that some contradictions or improvements were made by the witnesses would not materially affect case of the prosecution. Prosecution witnesses made statements after more than three years of the occurrence before the trial Court and so the same were bound to occur. Certain contradictions between the statements at the trial and the earlier statements are inevitable.
Contradictions by themselves do not lead to result that whatever witnesses stated on the salient features of the case and which conforms to other evidence on record is to be thrown out. The witnesses have not made parrot-like statements. Their evidence inspires confidence and was rightly believed by the learned trial Judge while holding them guilty of the charge against them. I also hold them wholly reliable witnesses.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants miserably failed to point out circumstances relying upon which sentences of the appellants could be reduced, so the same are maintained. Muhammad Aslam alias Acchhu appellant is reported to have died during pendency of this appeal, so it stand abated to his extent.
15. For all these reasons, this appeal against conviction is dismissed.