' This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-4-2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi whereby appellants ,Sarfraz Ahmad and Manzoor Hussain were convicted under section 302-B, P.P.C. And sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs,50,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For three months, each. Both the appellants Sarfraz and Manzoor were also convicted under section 334, P.P.C. And sentenced to 5 years' R.I. Each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that Muhammad Asad complainant made a statement before the police on 1-8-1997 that his uncle Liaqat Ali was spreading fertilizer in his fields at 4-00 p.m. While he was attacked by Manzoor Hussain, Ozair and Sarfraz, Mst. Fayaz Begum aunt of the complainant and cousin Mst. Mariyam Bibi patched up the matter whereafter Liaqat Ali went to his house. At about 6-30 p.m. Liaqat Ali proceeded for his duty and when he came on the road, from opposite side Manzoor Ahmad armed with Danda, Ozair armed with pistol and Sarfraz armed with hatchet came out of Bhang plants. Manzoor accused raised Lalkara that Liaqat Ali should not be spared. On hearing noise Mst. Fayaz Begum and Mst. Mariyam Bibi mentioned above also came on the road. In their presence Ozair accused fired with his pistol which hit Liaqat Ali in the middle of his chest as a consequence of which Liaqat Ali fell down and breathed his last. Mst. Mariyam Bibi who had come to save Liaqat Ali was given Danda blow by Manzoor accused on her left wrist. On hearing the noise Aurengzeb father of the complainant came at the place of occurrence who was also fired at on the right side of his chest by Ozair accused. At this juncture complainant came forward to help his father but Sarfraz accused gave him a hatchet blow on his left jaw from the wrong side of the hatchet. Manzoor gave a second Danda blow which hit him on left elbow. After it the accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapon, whereafter Aurengzeb was shifted to Civil Hospital, Kahuta but he succumbed to his injuries there.
3. The motive behind this occurrence was that 4/5 years prior to this occurrence the maternal- uncle of father of complainant named Muhammad Ishaq was injured by Manzoor etc. The father and un 'e of the complainant helped Muhammad Ishaq, as a consequence of which all the three accused bore grudge and murdered them with their common intention.
4. Regarding this occurrence Muhammad Asad complainant lodged F.I.R. No,158 on 1-8-1997 under sections 302(b)1334/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Kahuta. Manzoor Hussain accused was arrested on 2-8-1997 and on his pointation Danda was recovered. Sarfraz Ahmad was arrested on 9-8-1997 and he led to the recovery of hatchet. Blood-stained earth and empty of .30 bore pistol were sent to the office of Chemical Examiner and Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore, Ozair, accused could not be arrested and he was declared P.O. After completion of necessary formalities challan was submitted in the Court. Both the accused Sarfraz and .Manzoor Hussain were charged under sections 302(b)/334/34, P.P.C. To which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
' Prosecution examined Muhammad Aslam P.W.1, Sadaqat Ali P.W.2, Ibrar Hussain P.W.3, Shoukat Ali P.W.4, Muhammad Ishaq P.W.5, Raja Naseer Ahmad, P.W.6, Karamat Ali P.W.7, Muhammad Nisar P.W.8, Rashid Mehmood Kiani P.W.9, Muhammad Asad P.W.10, Mst. Mariyam Bibi P.W.11, Babar Hussain P.W.12, Dr. Nasrullah Jan P.W.13, Syed Manzar Hussain P.W.14, Liaqat Ali P.W.15, Muhammad Ishaq C. No,220 P.W.16 in support of its case. Apart from these witnesses, some documentary evidence consisting of Report of Chemical Examiner, and Report of Serologist was also produced by the prosecution.
' On completion of prosecution evidence 'statements of both the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Sarfraz accused pleaded not guilty and took the plea of alibi. He also denied the recovery. He did not appear as a witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Manzoor Hussain accused stated that the deceased persons received injuries at the hands of complainant party. He also denied the recovery. He also did not appear under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
5. While concluding the trial the learned Judge arrived at this conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt with the result the appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
6. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been taken into consideration and on examination of the record it appears that the prosecution version reflects on two incidents.
First incident has taken place at 4-00 p.m. On the day of occurrence i,e, 1-8-1997 when Liaqat Ali deceased was putting fertilizer in his maiz crop and at that moment Manzoor appellant alongwith his sons Uzair and Sarfraz assaulted on Liaqauat Ali but the matter was patched up by Fayyaz Begum wife of Liaquat Ali and Mariyam Bibi cousin of Muhammad Asad complainant. The second incident took place at 6-30 p.m. On the road side when Liaquat Ali being a Railway Employee came to go on his duty and at that moment Manzoor while armed with Danda, Uzair (since proclaimed offender) armed with pistol and Sarfraz armed with hatchet came out from the plants of Bhang
(hemp) from the opposite side of the road and assaulted with the result that Liaquat Ali and Aurangzeb lost their lives after sustaining the fire shot injuries while Muhammad Asad (P.W.10) and Mst. Maryium Bibi (P.W.11) were injured. The incident was also witnessed by Fayyaz Begum the widow of Liaquat Ali deceased. In accordance with the version of Muhammad Asad the motive behind the occurrence was a long-standing enmity when four or five years back Muhammad Ishaque their relative was injured by Manzoor, etc. (appellants). The statement Exh.P.A. Of Muhammad Asad was recorded in Civil Hospital at Kahutta. In order to rebut this prosecution version Manzoor Hussain took this plea that in fact both the deceased alongwith Abrar Hussain P.W.
And Nazakat Hussain and their other relatives including Muhammad Ishaque P.W. Assaulted on him when he was coming back from the field alongwith his two minor sons and in this incident he was injured and that both the deceased and their relative Asad and Maryium might have sustained the injuries at the hands of their own relatives and that he levelled the allegation that his false involvement has been arranged by Muhammad Ishaque P.W. In order to suppress the actual facts and that the witnesses have deposed against him because of relationship. He in order to establish the injuries sustained by him produced Dr. Sajjad Hussain (D.W.1) who deposed that Manzoor Hussain had sustained six injuries. He was medically examined on 2-8-1997 at 6-30 p.m. And in cross-examination he admitted that there is a possibility that Manzoor Hussain received injuries on 1-8-1997 at 4-00 p.m. And that these injuries were possible during the scuffle.
' The point for examination is as to whether the injuries sustained by Manzoor Hussain are sufficient to negate the prosecution version. In my opinion the injuries sustained by him does not give birth to any other story for the reason that when D.W.1 stated that the injuries of Manzoor Hussain could be possible to have sustained on 14-1997 at 4-00 p.m. The learned defence counsel should have requested to the Court for reexaminatioh of this witness but no such request was made, therefore, these injuries cannot be connected with the second occurrence as narrated in the F.I.R. (Exh.P.C.) or by the witnesses at trial.
' Mst. Maryium Bibi (P.W.11) denied this suggestion that Manzoor Hussain got these injuries on different parts of his body caused by the P.Ws. And the deceased. This suggestion is incomplete because it was not suggested that Manzoor Hussain had sustained the injuries in the second incident which has taken place at 6-30 p.m. Muhammad Asad P.W.10 stated in the examination-in- chief of his statement that Manzoor was injured in the first incident which had taken place at 4-00 p.m. And in cross-examination he stated that he had not seen the first occurrence. It would appear from .The cross-examination put to the eye-witnesses that two incidents had not taken place and that there was one incident in which the parties had sustained the injuries. It means that the statement of Asad complainant finds corroboration from the statement of Dr. Sajjad Hussain (D.W.1) that Manzoor Hussain was injured in the first incident. Therefore, the plea advanced by Manzoor Hussain carries no importance and it appears from the evidence on the record that he alongwith his sons was aggressor in the second incident which resulted into two casualties and injuries to the said witnesses. The statement Exh.P.C. Was recorded at 9-00 p.m. In Civil Hospital at Kahutta while F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 was recorded at 9-10 p.m. On 1-8-1997. The distance of place of occurrence from the police station was five miles. Although the F.I.R. Was not recorded at the police station but the circumstances on the record force to believe that on receipt of information Babar Hussain, S.-I. (P.W.12) arrived in the hospital where the statement Exh.P.A. Was recorded. It appears that recording of the statement Exh.P.A. Was quite natural because Aurangzeb was brought in the hospital in injured condition and this fact could not be negated at any stage. Therefore, when the F.I.R. Is recorded outside the police station and there are two casualties, some time is consumed in recording the F.I.R., therefore, it appears to be established that F.I.R. Was promptly lodged in this case.
7. The motive behind the occurrence as given in the F.I.R. And also in the statements at trial is that Muhammad Ishaque a relative of the complainant party was given beating by the appellants. This Muhammad Ishaque is relative inter se the parties, had appeared in the witness-box as P.W.5 and if the entire circumstances on the record are taken into consideration it would appear that the motive behind the occurrence was also established by the prosecution.
8. It is obvious that the ocular account has been furnished by two injured witnesses and their statements find full corroboration from the medical evidence. They are related to the deceased persons and that there is also protracted enmity between the parties but if quite carefully their statements are examined it would appear that their statements inspire confidence and that despite absence of any independent witness, the ocular account furnished by them can be believed, even otherwise when the occurrence taken place on the road side, it is not essential that the people living around would have come out from their houses to see the occurrence. The recoveries of crime weapons from the appellants are additional pieces of corroboration.
' It appears from the perusal of the record that the age of Sarfraz appellant is given as 16 years in Saza Slip prepared by Muhammad Khalil, Inspector/S.H.O. Police Station on 9-8-1997 while in the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The age of Sarfraz is recorded as thirty years and just below the particulars at page 91 of the judicial file a line has been added to indicate that he is aged about twenty years. It clearly appears on examination of the extract as mentioned above that the typing is with two ribbon as the line added is quite dim and this situation forces to believe that statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. By making this addition has been forged. Even otherwise, for having any concession of minority the school leaving certificate or any birth certificate should be brought on the record and such-like documents (URDU TEXT) or the age given in any statement of the accused are rough assessm ents. Therefore, the ages given in such-like statements gives no benefit to the accused. The defence version carries no importance and it appears from the judgments passed by the learned trial Judge that there was a correct appreciation of evidence, and he arrived to a correct conclusion in assessing that the present appellants have shared the common intention with the co-accused who is yet absconder, therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court calls for no interference. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants are devoid of any force.
9. As a consequence of the discussion above, this appeal being without merits is hereby dismissed.