' Muhammad Javed and 4 others were tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore in a private complaint under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Nawan Kot, Lahore.
2. Muhammad Javed accused was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. He was also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs,50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Vide judgment dated 20-12-2000.
However, Muhammad Shafique, Muhammad Sabir, Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Bashir were acquitted of the charge.
3. The complaint in this case was filed by Mst. Sarwar Bibi. According to her, on 6-7-1995 at 7-30 a.m. Her son Muzaffar Ahmad went out of his house for his job. After a short while, she heard alarm and her sons Amjad Ali and Sajid went out of the house. Complainant also followed them. The complainant saw that Muhammad Javed accused armed with pistol, an unknown person armed with pistol, Bashir accused armed with club, Sabir armed with stick and Muhammad Shafique armed with an iron rod, Muhammad Siddique empty-handed, had'caught hold of her sons Muzaffar Ahmad, Amjad Ali and Sajid Ali, Muhammad Siddique raised Lalkara that Muzaffar, Sajid and Amjad Ali be done away with. Javed accused fired a shot with pistol which hit on the abdomen of Muzaffar Ahmad. Bashir Ahmad accused inflicted blows with club on the different parts of the body of Amjad Ali and Sajid Ali. According to complainant Sabir and Shafique accused inflicted blows with their respective weapons to Sajid. Muzaffar Ahmad and Amjad Ali fell down.. An unknown accused person also ineffectively fired with pistol. Ghulam Hussain and Javed P. Ws. Also reached the spot and witnessed the incident. The accused escaped from the spot with their respective weapons. Muzaffar Ahmad was removed to the hospital but he died in the hospital whereas Amjad Ali was taken to Mayo Hospital, Lahore.
' Motive for the incident statingly was that Muhammad Arshad son of the complainant gave some amount to Muhammad Sabir, accused, to be given to labourers but said amount was not disbursed to the labourers due to which 3-4 days prior to the incident, an altercation took place between Muhammad Sabir, Siddique and Muhammad Arshad. Muhammad Javed accused gave threats and due to that grudge the accused committed the offence.
4. The matter was reported to police by the complainant. In the subsequent investigation conducted by the police Kaleem Ullah Niazi was found to be the unknown accused whereas his father was made accused for offence under section 109, P.P.C. Mcording to complainant the aforesaid accused had no motive to commit the offence. Aggrieved of the investigation conducted by police, the complainant filed a private complaint under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. The accused were summoned to face trial.
5. Charge under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. Was framed against the accused.
6. Mst. Sarwar Bibi complainant P.W.3 reaffirmed the version given in the complaint. Amjad Ali injured P.W.4 and Muhammad Javed P.W.5 supported the version advanced by Mst. Sarwar Bibi complainant.
7. Dr. Azhar Masood conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Manzoor Ahmad and found an oval lacerated wound with inverted margins measuring 9.7 x 0.5 c.m. x lower abdomen, 2.5 c.m. From anterior midline, 7 c.m. Below umbilicus at 5 O'Clock position and 7 c.m.
Above pubic symphysis.
8. Dr. Abdul Hanan Farooqui P.W.9 had medically examined Amjad injured P.W. And noted a lacerated wound measuring 2 x 0.5 c.m. x D.N.P. On left side of supper forehead.
9. Niamat Ali was examined as C.W.1, Bashir Khan as C.W.2, Ghazanfar Ali, S.-I. As C.W.3, Abdul Ghani, S.-I. As ,C.W.4, Irshad Akhtar as C.W.5, Ghulam Sarwar, D.S.P. As C.W.6 and Hameed-udDin, Draftsman as C.W.7.
10. The accused in their statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Professed their innocence and pleaded their false implication in the case.
11. The accused examined Muhammad Afzal as D.W.1; Abdur Rashid as D.W.2 and Amanat Ali as D.W.3 in their defence.
12. Trial Court believed the prosecution case and convicted Muhammad Javed, accused, as stated above. However, the remaining accused were ,acquitted of the charge.
13. The convict appealed. Mst. Sarwar Bibi complainant filed a revision petition for enhancement of sentence and compensation awarded to Muhammad Javed, convict, which was directed to be heard alongwith criminal appeal filed by the convict.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that occurrence had taken place at the business premises of the appellant and as a matter of fact, he was attacked by sons of the complainant and then a customer who was present at the business premises of the convict had tried to ward off the attack and had fired in air and one of the shots tired by said person who later was identified as Kaleem Ullah, had accidentally hit the deceased and appellant was wrongly convicted by the trial Court. It was submitted that the evidence on record against the appellant was not worthy of any credence as it consisted of discrepant testimony of prosecution witnesses. It was also argued that result of investigation fully supported the defence version and it was established beyond any shadow of doubt that Kaleem Ullah had actually fired when a scuffle had taken place between the accused and the members of the complainant party and the appellant had not used any fire-arm weapon. It was submitted that appellant deserved acquittal. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand submitted that prosecution case was supported by a number of persons which included Muhammad Javed P.W.5 who was not related to any of the parties and he was an independent person and his testimony could not be rejected by any stretch of imagination. It was submitted that Kaleem Ullah who was originally not named in the F.I.R. Or by the complainant, might have fired in air at the time of incident but that did not cause any injury to the deceased and the appellant could not have been substituted for Kaleem Ullah, if he was the real culprit. It was submitted that evidence on record established the case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and that defence was trying to take advantage of investigations carried out by the police functionaries who never traced or arrested said Kaleem Ullah.
15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and record has also been seen. Originally a criminal case was registered against the accused. Result of investigation, however, went against the complainant when police concluded that Kaleem Ullah a resident of Mianwali had actually fired in the course of fight between Javed and his brother Sabir and others on one side, and son of the complainant and other on the other side. The case of the prosecution as revealed at the trial was supported by evidence of motive which was in terms that Sabir brother of Javed had not disbursed the amount received by him as a sub-contractor to other labourers.
The ocular account of the incident was furnished by Amjad Ali P.W.4 and Muhammad Javed P.W.5.
The most damning piece of evidence in armory of prosecution was testimony of Muhammad Javed P.W.S. He had a shop near the place of occurrence. He was a young person and did not have any relations with the complainant party. He had no enmity with the accused either and in these circumstances his testimony could not be rejected on any count. Testimony of Javed alone is sufficient for recording conviction of the appellant. The testimony of Muhammad Javed coupled with other evidence suffices to establish affirmatively, prosecution case against the appellant.
16. The conviction of appellant as recorded by the trial Court, therefore, is upheld. Sentence awarded to the appellant has been found to be appropriate sentence in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is also upheld.
17. The appeal is dismissed. As the sentence awarded to the appellant has been found to be appropriate sentence in the facts and circumstances of the case, revision petition is also dismissed.