' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,242/J of 2001 filed by Sultan Mahmood, appellant, who was convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide his judgment dated 29-6-2001 to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C. With the further direction to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of Asif Ali deceased, or in default two years' R.I. With the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 12-8-1995 at 11-00 a.m. Within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dijkot at a distance of 18 Kms. While the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 1-30 p.m. By Farzand Ali complainant and the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.E. Was recorded by Zafar Hussain Inspector/S.H.O. P.W.11.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case, as disclosed by Farzand Ali complainant are that on 12-8-1995 at 11-00 a.m. He alongwith his brother Abdul Majeed, Muhammad Aslam and one Asif Ali was coming from his agricultural land towards the village. Muhammad Asif Ali was on a bicycle and was going a bit ahead of them. When they all reached near the house of Salamat Ali Ansari, Mukhtar alias Tari equipped with Repeater gun .12 bore, Sultan Ahmad armed with .12 bore gun, Imtiaz armed with rifle .222 bore, Shahzad armed with rifle .8 mm and one unknown person emerged from the bushes of Kikar and Imtiaz accused while raising a Lalkara asked Mukhtar alias Tari accused "as what he was waiting for, finish Muhammad Asif" hearing of which Mukhtar alias Tari accused shot a fire with his repeater at Asif hitting him on the outer side of left thigh as a result of which he, Asif, fell down from his cycle and in that position Sultan accused fired a shot with his gun, the pellets of which hit on his (Asif deceased) left eye and below left ear. Imtiaz,. Shahzad and unknown accused person then started aerial firing with the Lalkaras that if any one of them came forward, he too would be finished. Whereafter, the accused decamped away while doing aerial firing. Complainant alongwith the said P.Ws. Took the deceased to D.H.Q. Hospital, Faisalabad in an injured condition whereon he succumbed to the injuries.
' Motive behind the present occurrence was that 3/4 days prior to the occurrence, there was exchange of hot words and scuffle between Asif deceased and accused Mukhtar alias Tari, Imtiaz etc. And due to this grievance all the accused, in furtherance of their unlawful common intention, killed Muhammad Asif on the eventful day.
4. Investigation of the case was taken over by Zafar Hussain Inspector/S.H.O. P.W.11. He went to the Civil Hospital, Faisalabad, prepared injury statement Exh.P.H. And inquest report Exh.P.J., thereafter, went to the spot, took into possession pellets and blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo. ,Exh.P.F. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was entrusted to Khalid Mehmood, Inspector/S.H.O.
P.W.9, who on 17-11-1995 arrested Sultan Mehmood accused/appellant, who on 22-11-1995 while in police custody led to the recovery of gun P.4 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C.
After completion of the remaining investigation, the accused were challaned to face the trial.
5. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 11 witnesses in all, thereafter, learned D.D.A. Tendered in evidence report of Chemical Examiner regarding blood-stained earth Exh.P.L.
And that of Serologist Exh.P.M. And closed the prosecution case then the statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded innocence.
6. After having read the entire prosecution evidence, statements of the accused recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And other relevant material available on record learned counsel Mr. Saifullah Khalid, Advocate at State expenses submits that appellant has been falsely implicated, that according to the report of post-mortem examination the injury caused by co-accused Mukhtar, who had already murdered was proved fatal. As far as, injuries attributed to the present appellant are concerned, those did not prove fatal and he is entitled to lesser punishment, that recovery was effected from the appellant three months after the occurrence, that both the eye-witnesses are related to the deceased, that no case is made out against the appellant and he is entitled to acquittal.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that appellant is named in the F.I.R., specific role is attributed to him and ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence. He supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Four accused persons were named in the F.I.R.
Present appellant is real brother of Mukhtar Ahmad alias Tari accused, who was murdered before the trial of instant case while Shahzad and Imitaz were acquitted b:' the learned trial Court. As far as, unknown accused person is concerned, he was never arrested by the police. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 12-8-1995 at 11-00 a.m., that's, a broad daylight at a distance of 18 Kms.
Away from Police Station Dijkot while the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 1-30 p.m. So it was a case of promptly lodged F.I.R. As far as, present appellant is concerned, he was armed with .12 bore gun and he caused injuries on the left. Eyebrow, face and left ear of the deceased. Ocular account is fully corroborated by medical evidence because injuries Nos.5 to 7 are the injuries which are attributed to the present appellant. Post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 13-8-1995 at 8-00 a.m. The duration given by the doctor is 20 hours which is also in line with the time of occurrence. Appellant remained fugitive from law for about four months. Although the recovery was effected from the appellant but it had got no relevancy in this case because no crime-empty was recovered from the spot. Nothing had come on record that there was any direct previous enmity of the eye-witnesses A with the appellant, though two eye- witnesses, who appeared before the learned trial Court were related to the deceased but they cannot term as interested witnesses, as they had no animous with the appellant. It was not a case of mistaken identity. I have also gone through the defence version of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And after going through the same I am not convinced with his defence version.
He while armed with fire-arm alongwith his co-accused committed the murder of the deceased.
He was the member of unlawful assembly and murder was committed in prosecution of common object.
9. After having scanned the evidence of the prosecution, the defence version of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., facts and circumstances of the case, no doubt is left in my mind that the prosecution has been fully able to prove its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned trial Court is maintained.