PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 287
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Anwaarul Haq Pannun, J.
SHAMRAIZ NASIR etc.--Appellants
versus
STATE, etc.--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 20842 & Crl. Rev. No. 21645 of 2021,
heard on 14.10.2024.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----S. 302(b)--Qatl-e-amd--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--The prosecution has proved charge against appellant beyond any reasonable doubt through cogent, convincing and confidence inspiring evidence--The conviction and sentence awarded by trial Court is quite justified, well-reasoned and has been passed after rightly appreciating evidence available on record and High Court has not been able to locate any perversity, illegality and impropriety as well as any loophole to extend any benefit of doubt to appellant--The prosecution has produced right from inception of occurrence to its end, conclusion of trial having no room to cater any doubt regarding remotest hypothesis of innocence of appellant--The quality and quantum of prosecution’s evidence has fully convinced my judicial conscience that appellant being guilty of charge has rightly been convicted and sentenced by trial Judge and there is no room for interference with well-reasoned and profound findings of guilt, thus judgment of trial Court whereby conviction and sentence awarded to appellant, is upheld--Appeal being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed. [Para 5 & 6] A & B
Rai Ahmad Hayat, Advocate, for Appellant.
Mr. Zafar Iqbal Mangan, Advocate/learned defence counsel for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Atif Rao, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for State.
M/s Naveed Iqbal Sivia and Tehsin Sarwar Chatha, Advocates for Complainant/petitioner.
Date of hearing: 14.10.2024.
Judgment
This single judgment shall decide the above titled criminal appeal under Section 410, Cr.P.C. by the appellant and criminal revision petition under Sections 435/439, Cr.P.C. by the complainant, seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to the convict/appellant through the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2021, passed on conclusion of a trial in case/F.I.R. No. 737, dated 19.08.2020, offence under Section 302, PPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Mandi Bahauddin, by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, whereby the appellant/respondent has been convicted under Section 302(b), PPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with direction to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- , under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months, the benefit of Section 382-B Cr. P.C has however been extended.
2. Precisely, the prosecution’s case as set out in the FIR (Exh.PB) on the basis of a complaint in writing (Exh.PE) submitted by Muhammad Arif, complainant (PW-7) is to the effect that on 19.08.2020 at about 6.00 p.m. he along with his son Shafiq Arif and Muhammad Nawaz s/o Shafaat Ali were present in his house situated at Kot Nawab Shah, in the meanwhile, the accused Shamraiz Nasir, (brother of the complainant) came there on a motorcycle and raised lalkara that he shall teach a lesson for making a promise for giving hands of his daughter Mst. Fehmida Fatima and pulled the pistol 30 bore, out of his dub, made a burst, which hit on her face, whereupon she fell down and succumbed to the injury at the spot.
3. Upon submission of a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., to the Court, the accused was charge sheeted, who denied it and claimed trial. After producing as many as 11 prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-11) and tendering reports of PFSA (Exh:PN and Exh: PO) the learned Prosecutor closed the evidence. The convict/ appellant, when examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., pleaded his innocence. In reply to the question that why this case and why the PWs deposed against him the convict/appellant replied as under:-
“A false case has been lodged against me. Real facts of the case are that there is a dispute over the inherited house in between me and my brothers (complainant party), which was arisen after the death of my father. I and my brother Aurangzaib are in possession of said house while the complainant is residing in a separate house in village Bhojowaal. Due to dispute of house and quarrel, the complainant is residing at MandiBahauddin from last two years. I and my brother Aurangzaib are not in speaking terms with our brother/complainant. I have not done any occurrence. Mudassar and deceased lady was the paramour of each other who were fleeing from the house on the fateful day. Mudassir was equipped with firearm weapon and on hue and cry of complainant’s wife and family, said Mudassar made fire which landed on body of Mst. Fehmida bibi. On the day of occurrence, I was not present at the place of occurrence. Due to above said grudge of house between me and my brother, the complainant has falsely booked me in this case. I have no concern with the alleged occurrence. In order to possess over the house and my property the complainant has lodged this case against me. There are also material contradictions in between the statement of the private P.Ws.”
Neither the accused examine himself under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in his defence. On conclusion of the trial, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant through the impugned judgment as alluded to in earlier para No. 1 of the judgment.
4. Arguments heard and record of the case has been perused.
5. Perusal of record reveals that the alleged occurrence took place on 19.08.2020 at about 06.00 p.m. within the precinct of Kot Nawab Shah. The distance between the place of occurrence and police station is about ½ Kilometer. The F.I.R was registered at about 7.00 p.m. on the same day vide rappat No. 28 hence, this Court is of the view that the F.I.R was registered with promptitude, therefore, it excludes the chances of pre-registration consultation or deliberation for concoction of a besuiting story by complainant. The prosecution’s case hinges upon ocular account furnished by the complainant Muhammad Arif (PW-7) Shafique Arif (PW-8), which had duly been corroborated with medical evidence furnished by Dr. Uzma Ghaffar, Senior Women Medical Officer (PW-5). The complainant Muhammad Arif (PW-7) is father of the deceased. He is also brother of the appellant. Shafique Arif (PW-8) is brother of the deceased. As such, question of any misidentification or substitution of the accused does not arise. The appellant had caused a fire-arm injury on the body of the deceased Mst. Fehmida Fatima and as per post-mortem report (Exh.PD) compiled by the medical officer Dr. Uzma Ghaffar SWMO (PW-5), injury No. 1 is ante-mortem in nature and is sufficient to cause death due to injury to vital organ brain. The probable time between injury and death was immediate whereas in between death and postmortem was 14 to 16 hours. Muhammad Arif, Complainant (PW-7) reiterated the story of complaint (Exh:PE), which has been described comprehensively in paragraph No. 2 of the judgment, therefore reiteration thereof being unnecessary is hereby dispensed with. Shafique Arif (PW-8) fully supported the version of the complainant PW-7. Both the PWs were cross-examined at length by the defence but they stood firm in their statements. The contradictions/discrepancies referred by learned counsel for the appellant, which are minor in nature and result of lapse of time affecting human memory, are neither material nor fatal to the prosecution’s case. The prosecution has proved the charge against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt through cogent, convincing and confidence inspiring evidence. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is quite justified, well-reasoned and has been passed after rightly appreciating the evidence available on record and this Court has not been able to locate any perversity, illegality and impropriety as well as any loophole to extend any benefit of doubt to the appellant. The prosecution’s case is further strengthened by recovery of weapon of offence i.e. pistol 30 bore, allegedly recovered on pointing out of the appellant from house of his father-in-law, which was seized by the I.O Wahid Ikram SI (PW-11) through recovery memo Exh:PC attested by PWs Imtiaz Ahmad 608/C (PW-3) and Javed Iqbal 429/C coupled with positive report of PFSA, Lahore (Exh:PO), the perusal whereof shows that the cartridges (item Cl to C4) were identified as having been fired with the Pistol P1.
6. Having scanned the entire prosecution’s evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has produced right from the inception of the occurrence to its end, the conclusion of trial having no room to cater any doubt regarding the remotest hypothesis of innocence of the appellant. The quality and quantum of prosecution’s evidence has fully convinced my judicial conscience that the appellant being guilty of the charge has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Judge and there is no room for interference with the well-reasoned and profound findings of guilt, thus the judgment of the trial Court whereby the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant, is upheld. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed.
7. As far as Criminal Revision No. 21645 of 2021 (Muhammad Arif vs. The State, etc.) is concerned, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the instant criminal revision petition having no substance, stands dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments