2024 MLD 576
ZULFIQAR ALI vs State
Ss.302 (b), 202, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of the witnesses at the spot not doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of three persons of the complainant party by firing and due to such firing, fear spread in the village---Record showed that the complainant, being father of one of the deceased, was resident of the same village and his presence in front of the mosque could not be doubted---So far as the other eye-witness was concerned, though he was resident of some other village at the distance of eight miles yet his presence with his brother-in-law and visiting the house of his real sister, even without any specific cause, was not unusual---In our rural setup, the close kith and kin usually visit each other in their houses, spend time and even stay overnight without any specific object---In day time, travelling from one village to another was quite normal in remote areas---Even otherwise, if the evidence of such witness was excluded, deposition of the complainant was quite natural, straight forward and confidence inspiring, which was sufficient to believe the ocular account of the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused "S" and "J" without any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction to the extent of said accused persons was accordingly dismissed.
Recovery of weapons of offence and crime empties---Reliance---Accused were charged for committing murder of three persons of the complainant party by firing and due to such firing, fear spread in the village---During investigation, Accused "S" led to the recovery of rifle 244-bore; accused "J" got recovered gun 12-bore and a Pump Action whereas accused "Z" got recovered a stain-gun---Said weapons were sent to the office of Forensic Science Agency on 24.07.2013 for comparison with crime empties i.e. five empties of 30-bore caliber, seven 44-bore caliber cartridges and six 12-G(bore) shot-shell and eight 44-missed rounds, which had already been deposited into the said office on 25.06.2013 i.e. three days prior to arrest of the accused persons---Report from the said office was received with the result that seven crime empties were found wedded with the rifle recovered at the instance of accused "S"; 2/2 shot shells were identified as having been fired from both gun single barrel and pump action, which were recovered at the instance of accused "J" whereas no empty of stain-gun was recovered from the crime scene and, thus, no comparison was conducted qua the stain-gun recovered at the instance of accused "Z"---Keeping in view the positive report of the Ballistic Expert, there was no legitimate exception to hold that the recovery of respective weapons of offence from accused "S" and accused "J" provided full corroboration to the ocular account---So far as recovery of weapon of offence from accused "Z" was concerned, no crime empty of stain-gun was secured from the place of occurrence and, thus, the same remained inconsequential---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused "S" and "J" without any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction to the extent of said accused persons was accordingly dismissed.
Case of acquitted co-accused persons distinguishable from accused persons---Accused were charged for committing murder of three persons of the complainant party by firing and due to such firing, fear spread in the village---Record showed that the acquitted accused, who were shown to be armed with gun 12-bore, were alleged to have climbed over the roof-top of their house and made firing upon the witnesses of ocular account but they luckily escaped, however, fire shots hit the northern wall of a mosque---Case of the co-accused persons was quite distinguishable to the case of the accused persons for the reason that firstly they were declared innocent during investigation, being not present at the venue of occurrence on the fateful day and time---Secondly, no weapon of offence was recovered at their instance, and thirdly no injury was assigned to them, either on the deceased or the injured witness except some signs of firing, as alleged by the prosecution---In fact none of the Investigating officers noted/observed any such sign at the wall of the mosque---On the other hand, the accused persons were specifically assigned the role of making fatal fire shots, resulting into death of three innocent persons---In that scenario, the acquittal of co-accused had no bearing upon conviction and sentence of the accused persons in any eventuality---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused "S" and "J" without any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction to the extent of said accused persons was accordingly dismissed.
Considerable delay in conducting the postmortem examination upon the dead bodies of the deceased persons natural and fully explained---Accused were charged for committing murder of three persons of the complainant party by firing and due to such firing, fear spread in the village---Time consumption for postmortem examination of all the three dead bodies was hardly twelve hours whereas the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 33-kilometers in a remote area, therefore, the attraction of the Police Officers at the spot, preliminary inquiry, escorting the dead bodies to the mortuary, recording the statement of witnesses, collection of incriminating articles from the spot, preparing inquest reports and investigation from the people gathered there, took sufficient time for submission of the police papers for the purpose of postmortem examination---There were three dead bodies of one family lying at the spot and in that scenario, lapse of a few hours was quite natural and it could not be given any weightage adverse to the prosecution evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused "S" and "J" without any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction to the extent of said accused persons was accordingly dismissed.
Throwing a wider net---False implication---Accused were charged for committing murder of three persons of the complainant party by firing and due to such firing, fear spread in the village---Record showed that the case of accused "Z"was not at par with the case of the remaining two co-convicts being their father---Possibility of his false implication in the case in order to spread the net wide, could not be ruled out for more than one reasons---Firstly, said accused was shown armed with rifle but during investigation, the recovery of stain-gun was shown at his instance, which remained inconsequential---Secondly, no crime empty of stain-gun was recovered and secured from the place of occurrence---Thirdly, the fire shot attributed to the said accused on the person of deceased was found to be lower to upwards trajectory as against the ocular version showing that the deceased was standing in front of the said accused in the street at a close range---Ocular account was not in consonance with the medical evidence to that extent---In that view of the matter, prosecution evidence was doubtful to the extent of the said accused---Implication of the said accused, being father of the principal accused, seemed to be doubtful in order to spread the net wide---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused "Z" beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction of said accused was accordingly allowed.
Accused were charged for committing murder of three persons of the complainant party by firing and due to such firing, fear spread in the village---Motive behind the occurrence was that two years prior to the occurrence, sister of male deceased was abducted by the accused, who contracted marriage with her inspite her of being already married---Accused had apprehension from deceased that he might cause harm to his sister and due to that revenge they committed that occurrence---Complainant/father of the deceased put appearance in the dock in the Court room and reiterated contents of the crime report---Eyewitness/brother of lady deceased and maternal uncle of male deceased supplemented the complainant on all material aspects of the occurrence---Both the witnesses were cross-examined at exhaustive length on different dates but they remained firm and consistent on all material particulars of the incident qua the date, time, place, mode and manner of the occurrence, the weapons of offence, the specific role played by them at the spot for causing fire arm injuries especially on the person of two deceased---Defence could not shatter their credibility---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused "S" and "J" without any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction to the extent of said accused persons was accordingly dismissed.
Defence plea---No witness to establish defence plea produced---Accused were charged for committing murder of three persons of the complainant party by firing and due to such firing, fear spread in the village---Accused "S" took a stance in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C., that on the day of occurrence, his real grandfather died and he along with his mother visited the village to attend the funeral ceremony of his maternal grandfather; that on seeing the accused party deceased along with his companion while armed with lethal weapons, launched murderous assault upon him at the resident of his father whereupon he made firing from inside the house in his self-defence and all the deceased received fire arm injuries as a result of indiscriminate firing of their companion assailants---Statement of the accused clearly showed that he had not denied the occurrence though with a difference stance of self-defence but he failed to produce any witness in support of his plea during investigation or before the Trial Court---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused "S" and "J" without any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction to the extent of said accused persons was accordingly dismissed.
Motive proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of three persons of the complainant party by firing and due to such firing, fear spread in the village---Motive as set up by the prosecution was that sister of deceased being already married lady had eloped with accused "S" and contracted marriage with him two years prior to the occurrence without the consent/blessing of her brothers and parents---Accused persons were under constant threat at the hands of deceased to harm his sister and under that threat, they committed the occurrence---Motive part of the occurrence was proved by the prosecution through cogent and convincing piece of evidence rather it was admitted by the defence by putting certain questions during cross-examination upon the eye-witnesses as well as in their statements recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused "S" and "J" without any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction to the extent of said accused persons was accordingly dismissed.
0 Comments