1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, Ji -Muhammad Sadiq, convict has sought special leave to appeal by way of this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan against the judgment dated 26-7-2001 passed by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No,256 of 1998 and Murder Reference 116 of 1999 through which the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shujaabad vide judgment dated 16-7-1998, under section 302(b), P.P.0 read with section 324, P.P.0 has been maintained.
2. ' Muhammad Sadiq, the present petitioner, was convicted and sentenced for the charge of committing murder of Farooq Ali son of Mian Muhammad Yar whereas Ghulam Nazik, his co- accused, was convicted and sentenced under section 324, P. P. C for making an attempt on the life of Abdur Rauf son of Muhammad Yar (complainant) in the following manner:-
(a) Muhammad Sadiq: ' Sentence of death under section 302(b), P. P.C with direction to pay fine Rs,30,000 and the fine if realized was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. For six months.
(b) Ghulam Nazik ' Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with direction to pay fine of Rs,10,000 and Daman of Rs,20,000 under section 324, P.P.C. The amount of Daman if recovered was ordered to be paid to Abdur Rauf injured. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo R.I. For six months. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was allowed to him.
3. ' Muhammad Sadiq, petitioner and Ghulam Nazik his co-accused filed, a joint Criminal Appeal No,256 of 1998 whereas the learned trial Judge sent Murder Reference No,116 of 1999 under section 374, P.P.C to the High Court for confirmation of sentence of death awarded to the petitioner. The criminal appeal and the murder reference were disposed of by a Division Bench in the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment. Ghulam Nazik accused has not further challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court. The occurrence in the present case took place at 6 p.m.
4. On 30-6-1995 in village Gavian which is situated at a distance of 16 miles from Police Station Saddar Shujaabad, District Multan, and the report was lodged by Muhammad Yar, complainant at 12-45 on a.m. On 1-7-1995.
5. ' The relevant facts as summarized in the statement (Exh.PH) of Muhammad Yar, recorded by Mian Muhammad, S.-I. On the basis of which the case was registered against the petitioner and his co- accused vide F.I.R. Exh.PG/1 at Police Station, Shujaabad, are as under.
6. ' The complainant and his two sons namely, Farooq Ali and Abdur Rauf were present in the land, owned by the complainant in Village Gavian, Tehsil Shujaabad when Muhammad Sadiq and Ghulam Nazik appeared there with .12 bore guns. Ghulam Nazik shouted at the complainant and his sons to teach them lesson for arranging sale of the land out of the Khata belonging to the paternal uncle and step-brother of the accused and simultaneously Muhammad Siddiq fired two successive shots at Farooq Ali hitting him on his upper portion of the body whereas Ghulam Nazik fired two shots at Abdur Rauf which hit on his legs. Abdur Rauf injured was kept in Civil Hospital, Shujaabad for treatment whereas Farooq Ali was taken to Nishtar Hospital Multan but before reaching the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. Mian Muhammad, Sub-Inspector having prepared injury statement of the deceased dispatched the dead body to mortuary for post- mortem and himself proceeded to the place of occurrence. During the spot inspection, he collected blood-staind earth and 2 crime empties of .12 bore gun from the spot. The Sub-Inspector arrested the petitioner on 11-7-1995 and recovered 12 bore licensed gun used by him as weapon of offence. Upon completion of investigation, the petitioner and his co-accused were challenged to face the trial. The prosecution in addition to the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased, two eyewitnesses of the occurrence and the Investigating Officer also produced six other witnesses who remained associated with the case and tendered the, reports of Chemical Examiner, Serologist and Forensic. Sciences Laboratory in evidence. The petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Reply :- ' "Before 15/20 days of this occurrence, there was a quarrel with Ghulam Shabbir Kamboh, over the prize bond scheme and the people present there separated us. I had complained against Ghulam Shabbir Kamboh to his relatives and asked them to stop Ghulam Shabbir to visit the place near to our residence as he was known as a man of bad character. A day prior to the alleged occurrence Ghulam Shabbir Kamboh passed near my house and I again asked him to refrain from visiting that place while going he threatened me that he would take revenge of this insult from me. My younger brother Ghulam Nazik was present near the Rajbah in our land where Farooq deceased Abdur Rauf injured and Ghulam Shabbir alongwith two/three other persons armed with fire-arms reached on the tonga of Qasim and they caught hold of Ghulam Nazik co-accused my brother and attempted to put him in the tonga as Ghulam Shabbir, Farooq and Raoof are of bad character, therefore, Ghulam Nazik raised an alarm which attracted Ashiq Hussain, Mustufa Constable who fired and injured Farooq and Abdul Raoof in order to rescue Ghulam Nazik. I have been falsely involved because the occurrence took place in our land due to dispute in between Ghulam Shabbir Kamboh, and us as stated above."
7. ' The learned counsel representing the petitioner has raised the following contentions in support of this petition:
(a) That it was an unseen occurrence and the witnesses having received the information reached at the place of occurrence subsequently;
(b) That the deceased was bad character and he with the intention to commit sodomy with Ghulam Nazik, who was a boy of 11/12 years of the age at the time of occurrence, made an attempt to abduct him with the help of his companions in a Tanga when two police constables posted at Police Post Mauza Ganvain with a view to prevent the commission of offence, opened firing as a result of which Abdur Rauf and Farooq Ali sustained injuries. Learned counsel submitted that the version relating to the firing at Farooq Ali deceased and his companions by the police constable when they made an attempt to take Ghulam Nazik with them for immoral purposes in a Tanga being driven by one Qasim, was brought to the notice of Investigating Officer by the accused at the time of their arrest and Investigating Officer has admitted this fact in his statement before the Court and that suggestions were also put to Muhammad Yar (P.W.-5) father of Farooq Ali and Abdur Rauf (P.W.-7) injured, in this behalf.
(c) That the occurrence was initially reported by a local advocate at police station which was entered in the daily diary and that the deceased and Abdur Rauf were taken in injured condition to the hospital by the police constable in the Tanga of Qasim.
(d) That if the defence version is put in juxtaposition to the prosecution case, the same would carry reasonable possibility of being correct, therefore, the benefit of doubt arising in favour of the petitioner was wrongly withheld and if it would have been extended to him he would be acquitted.
8. ' Dr. Rana Muzaffar Iqbal (P.W.-2) who medically examined the deceased at Civil Hospital, Shujaabad, later also conducted post-mortem on the dead body and traced four lacerated wounds of similar size on the upper part of his body which were found to have been caused with firearm and were declared dangerous to life. Abdur Rauf was medically examined by the same doctor and it was found that he sustained two lacerated wounds of same size on lower part of his body. Muhammad Yar (P.W.-5) and Abdur Rauf (P.W.-7) are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence and Abdur Rauf also sustained injuries at the hand of Ghulam Nazik accused in the occurrence. The eye-witnesses have narrated the manner in which the occurrence took place in each detail without any describable contradiction and discrepancy. The witnesses have deposed that firing was made by Muhammad Sadiq with .12 bore gun at Farooq Ali deceased and by Ghulam Nazik at Abdur Rauf as a result of which they suffered injuries. The defence despite lengthy cross- examination has not been able to bring on record anything material relating to the version of the occurrence given by the accused except that the deceased and witnesses were involved in criminal cases. The fateful occurrence took place at 6 p.m. On 30-6-1995 in the broad daylight in the land owned by the complainant in village, therefore, the presence of complainant with his deceased son and Abdur Rauf injured in his land at the relevant time was quite natural and the contention that it was an unseen occurrence was without any substance. The perusal of the statement of eye-witnesses would show that not a single question was put to them that the deceased and Abdur Rauf were fired at by the police constable when they made an attempt to abduct. Ghulam Nazik for immoral purposes. The petitioner has neither made a statement on oath under section 340(2), P.P.C in support of his version nor bothered to take any step for production of Qasim Tanga-driver in defence and ever no request was made to the trial Court or the Appellate Court for calling Qasim in the witness-box. However, the suggestions were put to the Investigating Officer in this behalf but he denied that no such version of firing by police was brought to his notice during the investigation. The petitioner produced laved Akhtar, Head Constable, Muhammad Shakar and Khizar Hayat Constables as defence witnesses, who brought daily diary register of the concerned police station relating to the registration of criminal cases against the deceased and Abdur Rauf to show that deceased was bad character. We having scrutinized the statements of eye-witnesses, have found them truthful and trustworthy and their evidence being of unimpeachable character was of the standard which alone was sufficient to prove the charge and would need no corroboration to sustain the conviction. The motive behind the occurrence as disclosed by the prosecution was the dispute of land and even if this motive is excluded from consideration, still the prosecution case stands proved against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. This is correct that medical evidence cannot as such identify the assailants but the same at least can furnish corroboration to the ocular account to the extent of the nature and seat of injuries and the kind of weapons used in the occurrence. The perusal of medical evidence in the present case, shows that injured witnesses and deceased sustained injuries with pellets whereas according to the defence version they were fired at by police constable with service rifles and thus the prosecution case would also seek support from medical evidence whereas the defence version would be negated. The contention of the learned counsel that the existence of Police Chowki in Village Gavain was established through the statement of P.Ws.-3 and 4 and further the lodging of the report of the occurrence by a local lawyer was also proved through their evidence, therefore, the correctness of prosecution story would be clouded with doubt, was without any substance. We may observe that subordinate police officials usually make such obliging statement in favour of the accused which cannot be given preference over the direct evidence. In the present case, one witness namely, Abdur Rauf has sustained injuries at the hands of accused in the occurrence therefore the presence of eye witnesses on the spot, who corroborated each other on each' material point in line to the prosecution story given in the promptly lodged F.I.R. Would be tree from any doubt.
9. ' We having made detailed scrutiny of the evidence are fully convinced that prosecution has been successful h proving the charge against the petitioner beyond all reasonable 'doubts .And we therefore, while affirming the folding of guilt of the petitioner arrived at by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court in appeal, dismiss this petition. The conviction and sentence Awarded to the petitioner is maintained. Leave is refused.