PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 51
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 302(b)/34--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Qatl-e-Amd--Information of occurrence was imparted to police without afflux of any unnecessary delay--The tale of homicidal occurrence was brought on record through two eye-witnesses--In order to hold an eye-witness of occurrence as partisan witness, defence is obliged to bring on record that he was locked in some affair of grudge or abhorrence with accused facing trial--Though deceased was in receipt of multiple injuries, however, even then they opted not to spread a wider net so as to falsely implicate some other person from family of appellant--The duration between death and post-mortem was about four hours and such prompt autopsy goes long way in proving presence of witnesses at spot--Similarly, it further divulges from medical evidence that appellant not only gave successive scissor blows to deceased but same were also inflicted with force which led to damaging even heart of deceased--The scissor recovered from appellant is also found to be stained with human blood and medical evidence is in conformity with ocular account--The instant appeal being meritless is dismissed.
[Para 11, 12, 13 & 14] A, B, C, D, E & F
Mr. Tanvir Haider Buzdar Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Shahid Haleem, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab for State.
M/s. Ijaz Ahmad Lodhi, Advocate and Muhammad Sharif Karfi Khera, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 18.12.2019.
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 51
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Ch.Abdul Aziz, J.
ABDUL GHAFOOR--Appellant
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 869-J of 2012, decided on 18.12.2019.
Judgment
Through the instant appeal Abdul Ghafoor (appellant) has challenged the vires of judgment dated 18.12.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal in a trial held in case FIR No. 02/2011, dated 03.01.2011 under Sections 302, 34, PPC, registered at Police Station Dera Raheem Sahiwal, whereby, he was convicted and sentenced as under:
Under Section 302(b), PPC. to undergo life imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, he was ordered to further undergo six months S.I. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was however, extended to the convict.
2. Succinctly stated the case of prosecution, as unfolded from FIR (Exh.PF/1) lodged by Muhammad Tufail complainant (PW-6) is to the effect that he is resident of Chak No. 98/9-L; that on 03.1.2011 at about 1:45 p.m his brother Zafar Iqbal was standing in the street in front of house of his maternal uncle Saleh Muhammad; that suddenly Abdul Ghafoor armed with scissor along with his unknown companion came there and exhorted that Zafar Iqbal be caught hold and taught a lesson for insulting him; that in consequence thereof, the unknown accused took Zafar Iqbal into his clasp and Abdul Ghafoor gave successive blows of his scissor which landed on chest and belly of Zafar Iqbal; that on receipt of injuries Zafar Iqbal fell on the ground, upon which Abdul Ghafoor also inflicted injuries on his nose and eye; that on seeing the occurrence Tauqeer and Asif came there; that when Tauqeer tried to catch Abdul Ghafoor, he inflicted scissor blow on his shoulder; that on raising hue and cry many people from the village attracted at the spot and on seeing them the accused persons fled therefrom; the motive behind the occurrence is stated to be a petty exchange of hot words between Zafar Iqbal (deceased) and Abdul Ghafoor.
3. On 03.01.2011 Muhammad Aslam SI (PW.9) having received information of the occurrence reached at the spot, where he recorded statement (Exh.PF) of Muhammad Tufail (complainant), which was later on reduced into F.I.R. (Exh.PF/1). He inspected the place of occurrence, took into possession blood stained earth through recovery memo (Exh.PH). He prepared inquest report (Exh.PD) and injury statement (Exh.PC). He also prepared rough site-plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PK) and got prepared scaled site-plan through draftsman (Exh.PA and Exh.PA/1). After post-mortem examination he took into possession the last worn clothes of the deceased through recovery memo (Exh.PE). On 18.01.2011 he arrested Abdul Ghafoor (appellant). He interrogated the accused who made disclosure and in pursuance thereof led to the recovery of scissor blood stained (P7), which was taken into possession through recovery memo (Exh.PJ). He recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation the report u/S. 173, Cr.P.C. of the instant case was submitted before the Court.
4. During trial the prosecution in order to prove its case, produced nine witnesses. Muhammad Tufail and Muhammad Tauqeer (PW.6 and PW.7) who are eye-witness of the occurrence, Muhammad Aslam SI (PW.9) who investigated the case, whereas, Dr. Ghulam Fareed (PW.2) provided medical evidence.
5. The autopsy over the dead body of deceased, namely, Zafar Iqbal was conducted on 03.01.2011 by Dr. Ghulam Fareed (PW.2), who observed as under:--
1. Incised wound 1 cm x ½ cm deep going on front of chest lateral to left nipple, 4 cm from the nipple.
2. Incised wound 1½ x1 cm deep going on front of chest on left side of sternum.
3. Incised wound 1 cm x 1½ cm on left arm, wound was muscle deep.
4. Contusion below the left eye 3 cm x 2 Criminal Miscellaneous No.
5. Abrasion ¼ cm x ¼ cm on left cheek.
Opinion.
In his opinion death was caused due to Injuries No. 1 and 2 which injured the heart, led to profuse bleeding.
The time between injury and death was immediate while between death and post-mortem was about four hours.
6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, Abdul Ghafoor (appellant) was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., who responded to the question, why this case against him and why the PWs deposed against him, in the following terms:
“The complainant party involved me falsely in this case due to party faction existing in the village and the complainant and the PWs are closely related interse and the police witnesses deposed against me being connived with the complainant party.”
7. The appellant neither opted to appear as witness in his own defence nor produced any defence evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as afore-sated. Hence, the instant appeal.
8. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in fact the information of the occurrence was conveyed to police with delay but through tempering of record the First Information Report was made to look as if promptly registered; that the eye-witnesses of occurrence miserably failed to prove their presence at the spot and also went on to contradict each other on material aspects; that the incident occurred in a densely populated vicinity but none therefrom was cited as a witness; that the post-mortem of deceased was conducted with delay which adversely reflects upon the acclaimed presence of the eye-witnesses; that the ocular account is also contradicted by the medical evidence thus no reliance can be placed thereupon and that though reasonable doubt emerges from the prosecution case, however, its benefit was not extended to the appellant. With these submissions, it was urged that the conviction awarded to the appellant is liable to be set-aside.
9. On the other hand learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vociferously argued that the information of crime was imparted to police within one hour of the occurrence and such promptly reporting outrightly excludes the possibility of false implication or fabrication of facts; that during trial the detail of occurrence was brought on record by two eye-witnesses who besides being residents of the same vicinity were also not having any enmity with the appellant; that both of them successfully stood the test of cross-examination and no lacuna is emerging from their testimony; that the case of prosecution is further corroborated from the recovery of scissor effected from the appellant with which he committed the murder of deceased; that even during investigation the appellant was found involved in the commission of crime and that since the judgment of conviction suffers from no infirmity, hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed.
10. Arguments heard and record perused.
11. A wade through the record reveals that case in hand is emerging from an occurrence which took place on 03.01.2011 at about 1:45 p.m. in a vicinity known as Chak No. 98/9-L, District Sahiwal. The law was set into motion through statement/Fard Bayan (Exh.PF) of Muhammad Tufail (PW.6) made before Muhammad Aslam SI (PW.9) upon his arrival to the crime scene at about 2:45 p.m. The aforementioned facts reasonably demonstrate that information of the occurrence was imparted to police without afflux of any unnecessary delay. Since this Court is not oblivious of the fact that menace of tempering with record has penetrated deep into our system, hence, the record of the case is perused with utmost circumspection but even then nothing as such is found which may cause even a slightest doubt regarding the acclaimed time of conveying information of crime to police. In this backdrop it can inevitably be held that the case of prosecution is emerging from promptly lodged First Information Report and this fact, in the absence of some other exceptional circumstances is sufficient to exclude the possibility of concoction and fabrication.
12. The tale of homicidal occurrence was brought on record through two eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Tufail and Muhammad Tauqeer (PW.6 and PW.7) who both are related with the deceased as brothers. Needless to mention here that mere relationship of a witness with the deceased does not bring him within the definition of an interested witness. In order to hold an eye-witness of occurrence as partisan witness, the defence is obliged to bring on record that he was locked in some affair of grudge or abhorrence with the accused facing trial. It is on this premises an inference can be drawn that witness is having some axe to grind with the accused and then to declare him as interested witness. In the instant case, nothing as such is available on record from which it may even remotely insinuates that the two witnesses were inimically placed against the appellant. While dilating upon the ocular account, the question of foremost importance is the fact that whether the witnesses were residents of same vicinity or not. In the instant case, both the eye-witnesses were having their place of abode in the vicinity of crime i.e. Chak No. 98/9-L. Likewise, even from the scrutiny of record, this Court has not come across any circumstance from which it may alludes that at the eventful time the two witnesses should have been present at a place other than the crime scene. Swayed by the facts mentioned above, it can reasonably be held that narrators of ocular account are natural witnesses. Both of them successfully stood the test of cross-examination and furnished confidence inspiring detail of occurrence. Though the deceased was in receipt of multiple injuries, however, even then they opted not to spread a wider net so as to falsely implicate some other person from the family of appellant. This aspect reflects positively upon the credibility of both the eye-witnesses. The two eye-witnesses besides mentioning the locale of injuries caused by the appellant also deposed about the injuries to have been caused through scissor. Even no infirmity is noticed about the detail of post occurrence events narrated by Muhammad Tufail and Muhammad Tauqeer (PW.6 and PW.7). They were found to be on the same page not only regarding the occurrence but also about the arrival of police and recording of their statements.
13. As mentioned above, the two eye-witnesses are not found to be locked in some enmity with the appellant, hence, their deposition can be accepted even without corroboration. However, as an abundant caution, the record of the case is further perused, from which it is noticed that during investigation Abdul Ghafoor (appellant) led to the recovery of scissor (P-7) which was secured through recovery memo Exh.PJ on 23.01.2011. When examined by Chemical Examiner and Serologist the scissor was found to be stained with human blood. From this aspect, sufficient corroboration to the ocular account can be derived. Last but not the least, it is noticed that autopsy over the dead body of Zafar Iqbal was conducted by Dr. Ghulam Farid (PW.-2). The duration between death and post-mortem was about four hours and such prompt autopsy goes long way in proving the presence of witnesses at the spot. Similarly, it further divulges from the medical evidence that appellant not only gave successive scissor blows to the deceased but same were also inflicted with force which led to damaging even the heart of deceased.
14. The epitome of above discussion is to the effect that case of prosecution is emerging from promptly lodged F.I.R.; the ocular account is found to have been narrated by the two eye-witnesses who besides being residents of the same vicinity were having no axe to grind with the appellant; the scissor recovered from the appellant is also found to be stained with human blood and medical evidence is in conformity with the ocular account. In the foregoing circumstances, this Court is not left with any other option but to hold that prosecution successfully proved its case against the appellant. Resultantly, the instant appeal being meritless is dismissed. The appellant is on bail; he be taken into custody to serve out the remaining portion of his sentence.
(A.A.K.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments