PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 14
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 459, 324, 452, 34 & 302(b)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Qatl-e-amd--Also convicted house trespass--For recording statement of from doctor, it is clearly mentioned that she was fit for recording her statement--In circumstances of case, testimony of coupled with statement/dying declaration of is worthy of credence, confidence inspiring, credible and has rightly been considered by trial Court--Lady Dr. PW.6 who medically examined in injured condition and thereafter conducted autopsy of dead-body of deceased noted acid bum injuries on her person--Ocular account is fully supported by medical evidence--Now Court take up version of appellant disclosed by him in his statement recorded under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure--Appellant did not opt to appear as his own witness as provided under Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure--Appellant has failed to prove his version and trial Court as rightly discarded same with sufficient reasons--Prosecution has proved its case against appellant through aforementioned confidence inspiring and reliable evidence--Present appellant has committed brutal and callous act by pouring acid on face and body of deceased, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency--Convictions and sentences of present appellant appellant under Sections 459 and 302 (b), PPC awarded by trial Court are maintained--There is no substance in appeal in hand and same is dismissed. [Para 5, 6, 7 & 8] A, B, C & D
Mr. Rashid Gill, Advocate/Defence Counsel for Appellant.
Mr. Ali Hassan, Addl. Prosecutor General for State.
Nemo for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 14.12.2021.
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 14
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Shehram Sarwar Ch., J.
GHULAM MUSTAFA alias DEENO--Appellant
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. A. No. 295-J of 2014, heard on 14.12.2021.
Judgment
Ghulam Mustafa alias Deeno (appellant) alongwith his co-accused namely Muhammad Farooq was tried by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shorkot in a private complaint under Sections 302, 459 and 34, PPC instituted by Muhammad Safdar, complainant being dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by police in case FIR No. 1138 dated 20.10.2010, offence under Sections 324, 452 and 34, PPC (Section 302, PPC was added later on), registered at Police Station Shorkot City District Jhang. Vide judgment dated 05.04.2014 passed by learned trial Court, the appellant has been convicted under Section 459, PPC and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 302(b), PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life, with a further direction to pay Rs. 1,00.000/- (rupees one lakh only) as compensation under Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, to the legal heirs of deceased and in default whereof to further undergo six months S.I. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him. Both the .sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Through the same judgment, learned trial Court acquitted Muhammad Farooq co-accused of the appellant by extending him benefit of doubt and no appeal against his acquittal was filed either by the State and the complainant. Assailing the above convictions and sentences, the appellant has filed the appeal in hand.
2. Precisely the facts of the case as mentioned in the FIR (Exh.PA/1) recorded on the application (Exh.PA) of Muhammad Safdar, complainant (PW.l) are that two days prior to the occurrence in the morning, his sister Mst. Shagufta Noreen was going towards her cattle shed and on the way she was teased by Ghulam Mustafa (appellant) and Muhammad Farooq. Mst. Shagufta Noreen while weeping came to her mother and told the whole story whereupon mother of complainant went to Ghulam Mustafa etc and gave them abuses on account of teasing her daughter and in retaliation thereto the accused persons extended her threats. On the intervening night of 18/19.10.2010 mother of complainant was sleeping in her house. His brother-in-law (behnoi) was also sleeping there. At about 2:00 a.m. Ghulam Mustafa and Muhammad Farooq entered the house of complainant by scaling over the wall. Upon the barking of dog mother and brother-in-law of complainant woke up. Muhammad Farooq raised lalkara that they had come to teach a lesson of their insult upon which Ghulam Mustafa (appellant) poured the bottle of acid on the face and body of mother of complainant in order to kill her. Mother of complainant and brother-in-law of complainant raised hue and cry whereupon Ghulam Rasool came on the spot and witnessed the occurrence. The police shifted mother of complainant in injured condition to
3. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Law Officer for the State to their entire satisfaction, given serious consideration to their respective submissions and also perused the record.
4. This unfortunate incident wherein Mst. Zainab Bibi mother of complainant was done to death because of pouring acid on her face and body by Ghulam Mustafa alias Deeno (appellant), as per prosecution, took place on the night of 19.10.2010 at 2:00 a.m. in the area of Chak No. 490 J.B. situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station Shorkot District Jhang. The matter was reported to the police through application (Exh.PA) of Muhammad Safdar, complainant (PW.1) on 20.10.2010 at 4:00 p.m. Though there was delay of thirty-eight hours in reporting the matter to the police but the same is not fatal to the prosecution because in the FIR as well as before the learned trial Court it was the case of complainant that soon after the incident Mst. Zainab Bibi in injured condition was shifted to Civil Hospital Shorkot from where she was referred to Nishtar Hospital, Multan for medical treatment. Therefore, I hold that there was no conscious or deliberate delay in reporting the matter to the police and the same is not fatal to the prosecution.
5. Admittedly, Muhammad Safdar, complainant (PW.l) is not an eye-witness of the incident and he reported the matter to the police on the information allegedly imparted to him by Altaf (PW.2), Ghulam Rasool (PW.3) and Mst. Zainab Bibi (deceased) in injured condition, therefore, the testimony of complainant (PW.l) is taken out of consideration. Ocular account in this case consists of Altaf (PW.2) and Ghulam Rasool (PW.3). While appearing before the learned trial Court, they have unequivocally stated that it was the appellant who poured acid on the face and body of Mst. Zainab Bibi (deceased). They were cross-examined at length by the defence but nothing favourable to the defence could be extracted. Both these PWs have no enmity against the appellant to falsely implicate him in this heinous case. The prosecution case is further corroborated by the statement/dying declaration of Mst. Zainab Bibi (deceased). Tariq Mehmood S.I. (CW.2) has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 31.10.2010 he recorded statement of injured Zainab Bibi under Section 161, Cr.P.C. at
6. In the FIR, as well as before the learned trial Court, it was the case of prosecution that Ghulam Mustafa alias Deeno (appellant) poured acid on the face and body of Mst. Zainab Bibi (deceased). Lady Dr. Shahida Nusrat (PW.6) who medically examined Mst. Zainab Bibi in injured condition and thereafter conducted autopsy of the dead-body of deceased noted acid bum injuries on her person. Therefore, I hold that ocular account is fully supported by medical evidence.
7. Now I take up the version of the appellant disclosed by him in his statement recorded under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant did not opt to appear as his own witness as provided under Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the above circumstances, it is concluded that the appellant has failed to prove his version and learned trial Court as rightly discarded the same with sufficient reasons.
8. Having considered all the pros and cons of this case, the irresistible conclusion drawn by this Court is that the prosecution has proved its case against Ghulam Mustafa alias Deeno (appellant) through the aforementioned confidence inspiring and reliable evidence. The present appellant has committed brutal and callous act by pouring acid on the face and body of Mst. Zainab Bibi (deceased), therefore, he does not deserve any leniency. The convictions and sentences of the present appellant Ghulam Mustafa alias Deeno (appellant) under Sections 459 and 302 (b), PPC awarded by the learned trial Court are maintained. Resultantly, there is no substance in the appeal in hand and the same is dismissed in toto.
(A.A.K.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments