PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 149
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 302(b)/34--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Qatl-e-amd--Motive of occurrence--Appellant has denied his involvement in present occurrence in his statement recorded u/S. 342, Cr.P.C. and stated that although he made firing at spot at time of occurrence in his self-defence yet deceased sustained injuries at hands of complainant party--He has not opted to appear as witness u/S. 340 (2), Cr.P.C., however, produced certain documents in support of his defence plea--Considering above, appellant has failed to prove his defence plea which has rightly been discarded by learned trial Court with sufficient reasons--If evidence of recovery and motive is excluded from consideration, even then prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt against appellant through evidence discussed above--The appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by trial Court through impugned judgment which are hereby maintained--Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is extended to appellant--Criminal appeal filed by appellant, having no merits is hereby dismissed. [Para 7, 8 & 9] A, B & C
2020 SCMR 1414.
Rana Muhammad Saim Khan, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Sana Ullah, DPG for State.
Mr. Sajjad Hussain Tarar, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 11.10.2021.
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 149
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Sadaqat Ali Khan, J.
AMIR--Appellant
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 52 of 2013, heard on 11.10.2021.
Judgment
Appellant (Amir) has been tried separately being juvenile by learned trial Court in case FIR No. 620 dated 13.09.2007 offences under Sections 302, 34, PPC Police Station Saddar Chiniot, District Chiniot, and was convicted and sentenced vide judgement dated 19.12.2012 as under:
Amir (appellant)
Under Section 302(b)/ Sentenced to imprisonment for life for
34, PPC committing Qatl-i-Amd of Yaseen (deceased) with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- payable to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A of, Cr.P.C. in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6-months.
Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in his favour.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. Yaseen was done to death on the passage on 13.09.2007 at 7:00 a.m., FIR was lodged on the same day at 9:00 a.m. on the statement of his father. Mokha (pw-4), who and his cousin ( ) Manzoor Ahmad (PW-5) while claiming themselves to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence stated in their statements before learned trial Court that they along with deceased on the day of occurrence i.e. 13.09.2007 left their village for cutting fodder from Mauza Bala Raja, when they reached in front of Dera of appellant (Amir) and his father Aslam (co-accused tried separately being adult since acquitted) armed with rifle came there and handed over the same to the appellant while raising Lalkara that Yaseen should not be left alive, appellant (Amir) made firing hitting on different parts of body of Yaseen (deceased). They were cross-examined at length but their evidence could not be shaken during the process of cross-examination. They have corroborated each other on all material aspects of the case. They have also established their presence at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence with their stated reasons. Their evidence is straightforward, trustworthy and confidence inspiring. The discrepancies in the statements of the PWs pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant are minors and general in nature, occur in every case when witnesses (who are human being) are cross-examined after a long time of the occurrence as in present case, are not fatal to the prosecution case. The acquittal of co-accused (Muhammad Aslam, tried separately being adult) with different role is also not fatal to the prosecution case. (2020 SCMR 1414) “Javed Ishfaq vs. The State”.
4. Dr. Ijaz Ahmad who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Yaseen (deceased) has died. Fida Hussain, Dispenser / record keeper (PW-6) while appearing in secondary evidence has identified the hand writing and signatures of Dr. Ijaz Ahmad on post- mortem report (Exh. PG), inquest report (Exh. PJ) and injury statement (Exh. PH). Considering above, I am of the opinion that Dr. Ijaz Ahmad (since dead) had observed fire-arm injuries on the dead body of Yaseen (deceased) attributed to the appellant which were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, therefore, medical evidence has fully supported the ocular account furnished by the above mentioned eye-witnesses.
5. Motive of the occurrence as stated by Mokha (PW-4) is that 2/3 months prior to the present occurrence, Jano Moona caused injuries on the person of Aslam (co-accused tried separately being adult since acquitted) who had suspicion that he was injured at the instigation of Zafar (paternal uncle of Yaseen deceased), who has not been produced to establish this motive which is not believable.
6. Appellant was arrested on 26.09.2007, crime empties were collected from the place of occurrence on 13.09.2007, rifle was allegedly recovered on pointing out of the appellant on 07.10.2007. Crime empties received in the office on 01.11.2007 after the arrest of the appellant and recovery of weapon. In these circumstances, possibility of manufacturing of the crime empties before their dispatch to the concerned laboratory to obtain positive report cannot be ruled out, hence positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh. PP) is not believable which has rightly been discarded by learned trial Court in para 27 of the impugned judgment.
7. Appellant has denied his involvement in the present occurrence in his statement recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. and stated that although he made firing at the spot at the time of occurrence in his self-defence yet Yaseen (deceased) sustained injuries at the hands of complainant party. He has not opted to appear as witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., however, produced certain documents in support of his defence plea. Considering above, appellant has failed to prove his defence plea which has rightly been discarded by learned trial Court with sufficient reasons.
8. In view of above, if evidence of recovery and motive is excluded from consideration, even then prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt against the appellant through the evidence discussed above.
9. The appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court through the impugned judgment which are hereby maintained. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is extended to the appellant. Instant criminal appeal filed by the appellant, having no merits is hereby dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments