PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 227
استغاثہ پنجاب فرانزک سائنس ایجنسی کی اصل رپورٹ ریکارڈ پر لانے میں ناکام رہا ہے اور محض مذکورہ رپورٹ کی فوٹو کاپی پیش کی ہے جو دفعہ 510، ضابطہ فوجداری (Cr.P.C) کی منشا کے خلاف ہونے کی وجہ سے بطور ثبوت ناقابلِ قبول ہے۔ قانونِ شہادت آرڈر، 1984 کے آرٹیکل 75 کے مطابق، ایک دستاویز کو بنیادی ثبوت سے ثابت کیا جانا چاہیے جبکہ آرٹیکل 76 اس سلسلے میں کچھ استثنا فراہم کرتا ہے جن کے تحت اصل کی جگہ ثانوی ثبوت پیش کرنے کی اجازت دی جا سکتی ہے۔ ثانوی ثبوت پیش کرنے کی اجازت دینے کے لیے کسی دستاویز کے گم ہونے کا ثبوت ایک لازمی شرط ہے۔ زیرِ نظر مقدمے میں، پنجاب فرانزک سائنس ایجنسی کی رپورٹ کی فوٹو کاپی کو بطورِ ثانوی ثبوت پیش کرنے کے لیے نہ تو کوئی درخواست جمع کرائی گئی اور نہ ہی اجازت حاصل کی گئی۔ جہاں تک اس مقدمے میں محرک کا تعلق ہے، فریقین کے درمیان کشیدہ تعلقات سے انکار نہیں کیا گیا۔
Prosecution has failed to bring on record original report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency and has merely produced photocopy of said report which is inadmissible in evidence being against mandate of Section 510, Cr.P.C--According to Article 75 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, a document must be proved by primary evidence whereas Article 76 thereof provides some exceptions under which secondary evidence may be permitted to be given in place of original--The proof of loss of a document is a condition precedent for granting permission to lead secondary evidence--In present case, neither any application was submitted nor permission obtained for producing photocopy of report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency as secondary evidence--As far as motive in this case is concerned, strained relations between parties has not been denied.
PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 227
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Ch. Abdul Aziz and Anwaarul Haq Pannun, JJ.
GHULAM AKBAR--Appellant
versus
ZULFIQAR ALI etc.--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 516 & M.R No. 47 of 2020, decided on 27.2.2024.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
-دفعہ 302(ب)--قتلِ عمد--سزا اور جرم ثابت ہونا--اپیل برائے تنسیخ--سزا کی نوعیت میں تبدیلی--مقامِ وقوعہ اور وقتِ وقوعہ سے ملزم نے انکار نہیں کیا--دونوں گواہوں کی موقع واردات پر موجودگی نہ تو غیر یقینی ہے اور نہ ہی اس پر شک کیا جاسکتا ہے اور محض مقتول کے ساتھ رشتے کی وجہ سے ان کی شہادت کو رد نہیں کیا جاسکتا، جب تک کہ ان کے بیان میں کوئی تضاد یا ظاہری کمزوری نہ ہو--یہاں تک کہ جرح کے دوران بھی دونوں چشم دید گواہان استغاثہ کے مقدمہ کے تمام مادی پہلوؤں پر ثابت قدم رہے اور ان کی شہادت کو طبی شہادت سے مکمل تائید حاصل ہے--اپیل کنندہ کی جانب سے پیش کردہ متبادل ہونے کی درخواست غیر ثابت شدہ رہی--ویسے بھی، اس طرح کے قتل کے مقدمہ میں مدعی کی جانب سے ملزم کو تبدیل کرنا ایک نادر واقعہ ہے--بازیافتگی کو خارج کرنے کے بعد بھی، اپیل کنندہ کے خلاف اعتماد بحال کرنے والی اور قابل اعتماد چشم دید گواہی کی صورت میں کافی ثبوت موجود ہیں، جس کی طبی شہادت سے مکمل تائید ہوتی ہے، لہذا، پی پی سی کی دفعہ 302 (ب) کے تحت اس کی سزا، شہادت کی تشخیص کے اچھی طرح سے طے شدہ اصولوں پر مبنی ہونے کی وجہ سے برقرار رکھی جاتی ہے۔--یہ سزائے موت کا معاملہ نہیں ہے کیونکہ اپیل کنندہ کے حق میں کچھ تخفیف کرنے والے حالات موجود ہیں جو کم سزا کی ضمانت دیتے ہیں۔--اپیل کنندہ اس مقدمہ کے مخصوص حالات میں دفعہ 302 (ب)، پی پی سی کے تحت فراہم کردہ دو سزاؤں میں سے ایک کی حد تک شک کا فائدہ لینے کا مستحق ہے۔--یہ اب تک ایک تسلیم شدہ اصول ہے کہ ملزم اپنی سزا کے سوال کا فیصلہ کرتے وقت بطور تخفیف کرنے والا عنصر شک کا فائدہ لینے کا حقدار ہے۔
----S. 302(b)--Qatl-e-amd--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Modification in quantum of sentence--Place of occurrence and time of occurrence have not been denied by accused--Presence of both witnesses at place of occurrence is neither improbable nor can be doubted and merely on account of their relationship with deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded in absence of any inconsistency or inherent infirmity in their deposition--Even in their cross-examination both eye-witnesses remained consistent on all material aspects of prosecution’s case and their evidence is fully supported by medical evidence--Plea of substitution taken on behalf of appellant remained unproved--Even otherwise, substitution of accused in such like murder case by complainant is a rare phenomenon--Even after exclusion of recovery, there remains sufficient evidence in form of confidence inspiring and trustworthy ocular account fully supported by medical evidence against appellant therefore, his conviction under Section 302(b), PPC being based upon well-settled principles of appreciation of evidence is maintained--It is not a case of capital sentence as there are certain extenuating circumstances in favour of appellant to warrant lesse sentence--Appellant in peculiar circumstances of this case deserves benefit of doubt to extent of his sentence one out of two provided u/S. 302 (b), PPC--It is well-recognized principle by now that accused is entitled for benefit of doubt as an extenuating circumstance while deciding his question of sentence.
[Para 10 & 12] A, B, D & E
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)--
----آرٹیکل 75-- ضابطہ فوجداری (مجریہ 1898 کا قانون V)، دفعہ 510-- استغاثہ پنجاب فرانزک سائنس ایجنسی کی اصل رپورٹ کو ریکارڈ پر لانے میں ناکام رہا ہے اور اس نے محض مذکورہ رپورٹ کی فوٹو کاپی پیش کی ہے جو دفعہ 510، ضابطہ فوجداری کی منشا کے خلاف ہونے کی وجہ سے بطور شہادت ناقابلِ قبول ہے۔ قانونِ شہادت آرڈر 1984 کے آرٹیکل 75 کے مطابق، کسی دستاویز کو بنیادی شہادت سے ثابت کیا جانا چاہیے، جبکہ آرٹیکل 76 میں کچھ مستثنیات فراہم کی گئی ہیں جن کے تحت اصل کی بجائے ثانوی شہادت پیش کرنے کی اجازت دی جا سکتی ہے۔ کسی دستاویز کے گم ہونے کا ثبوت، ثانوی شہادت پیش کرنے کی اجازت دینے کے لیے شرطِ لازم ہے۔ زیرِ نظر مقدمے میں، نہ تو کوئی درخواست جمع کرائی گئی اور نہ ہی پنجاب فرانزک سائنس ایجنسی کی رپورٹ کی فوٹو کاپی کو بطور ثانوی شہادت پیش کرنے کی اجازت حاصل کی گئی۔ جہاں تک اس مقدمے میں محرک کا تعلق ہے، فریقین کے درمیان کشیدہ تعلقات سے انکار نہیں کیا گیا ہے۔
----Art. 75--Criminal Procedure Code, (V of 1898), S. 510--Prosecution has failed to bring on record original report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency and has merely produced photocopy of said report which is inadmissible in evidence being against mandate of Section 510, Cr.P.C--According to Article 75 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, a document must be proved by primary evidence whereas Article 76 thereof provides some exceptions under which secondary evidence may be permitted to be given in place of original--The proof of loss of a document is a condition precedent for granting permission to lead secondary evidence--In present case, neither any application was submitted nor permission obtained for producing photocopy of report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency as secondary evidence--As far as motive in this case is concerned, strained relations between parties has not been denied.
[Para 11] C
2011 SCMR 429, 2008 SCMR 688 and 2014 SCMR 1034.
Mr. Muhammad Usman Sharif Khosa, Advocate assisted by Mr. Qaisar Abbas, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Adnan Latif, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Mr. Abdul Rehman Ahmad Rizwan Sadozai, Advocate assisted by Ms. Saima Kanwal, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing 27.2.2024.
Judgment
Anwaarul Haq Pannun, J.--Ghulam Akbar, appellant along with his co-accused namely Akhtar Abbas, Ansar Abbas and Azhar Abbas was tried in a Complaint Case pertaining to case F.I.R
No. 83/2018 dated 28.04.2018, registered at Police Station B-Division, Dera Ghazi Khan, in respect of offence under Sections 302, 34, PPC. On conclusion of trial, learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 7.11.2020 has convicted the appellant under Section 302(b), PPC and sentenced him to death on two counts with a compensation of
Rs. 200,000/- each under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of each deceased, recoverable as arrears of land revenue, and in default of payment of compensation to undergo six months S.I., whereas co-accused Akhtar Abbas, Ansar Abbas and Azhar Abbas were acquitted of the charges.
Murder Reference No. 47 of 2020 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence awarded to the appellant Ghulam Akbar shall also be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Initially, complainant Zulfiqar Ali (PW-4) got registered F.I.R No. 83/2018 (Ex.PD/1), under Sections 302, 34, PPC at Police Station B-Division, Dera Ghazi Khan, but during the investigation co-accused Akhtar Abbas, Ansar Abbas and Azhar Abbas were declared innocent by the police. Feeling aggrieved of the investigation, the complainant preferred a Private Complaint (Ex.PK). As per contents of the complaint, on 28.04.2018 at 11:00 a.m. the complainant along with his brother Umer Siraj, father Naseer Muhammad and mother Musarrat Wazir Bibi was present at his house situated in Sajjad-Abad Colony; meanwhile, the accused Ghulam Akbar, Akhtar Abbas, Ansar Abbas and Azhar Abbas while armed with pistols entered into the house of the complainant; accused Ghulam Akbar raised lalkara that he will not let alive the father and the mother of the complainant for quarrelling with his sisters and daughter and for not letting them to rehabilitate; he made successive fires with his pistol hitting the father and mother of the complainant who succumbed to the injuries at the spot; rest of the accused extended threats of dire consequences to the complainant and his brother, thereafter, all the accused persons decamped while brandishing their weapons.
3. Motive behind the occurrence, as stated by the complainant, was that two sisters and one daughter of accused Ghulam Akbar are wives of the complainant and his two brothers respectively, but due to some estrangement/disunity they left the houses of their husbands and are Living in the house of their parents.
4. All the accused were summoned by the learned trial Court and they were formally charge-sheeted under Sections 302, 459, 114, 34, PPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The complainant produced as many as ten witnesses to prove charge against the accused whereas one CW was examined by the learned trial Court.
Dr. Aiman Javed, WMO (PW-9) and Dr. Muhammad Tanvir Hussain (PW-10) conducted postmortem examinations on the dead bodies of the deceased; Ghulam Akbar, S.I (CW-1) conducted investigation of this case, whereas Zulfiqar Ali, complainant (PW-4) and Umer Siraj (PW-5) furnished the ocular account.
5. On 28.04.2018 at 03:55. P.m., post-mortem examination on the dead body of Musarrat Wazeer deceased was conducted and the doctor (PW-9) found the following injuries:
1. There is an oval lacerated wound of about 1cm x 1.5cm with inverted margins present on the right pterion. Blackening present but no burning seen at the time of examination. This is the wound of entry.
2. There is oval lacerated wound of 2cm x 2.5cm with everted margins and dribbling of blood from the wound present on the left temporal bone 3cm above the mastoid process and 2cm posterior lateral to the left ear.
In her opinion, cause of death was damage to vital organ i.e. brain due to Injury No. 1 caused by firearm, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Probable time elapsed between injuries and death was 02 to 03 minutes and between death and postmortem 05 to 06 hours.
On the same day i.e. 28.04.2018 at about 04:00 p.m., post-mortem examination on the dead body of Naseer Muhammad deceased was conducted and the doctor (PW-10) found the following injuries:
1. A lacerated wound of about 1.2cm x 1.6cm oval shaped present on right side of head about 4cm above right ear, burning and blackening were present, having Collar of abrasion towards frontal side, margins were inverted, going deep in. It was an entry wound.
2. A lacerated wound of about 2.5cm x 2cm present below left ear just Icm below left ear, margins are everted. It was an exit wound. Injury No. 1 and 2 were inter connected.
4. A lacerated wound of about 2cm x 1.2cm present on left side of front of neck, burning blackening were present, margins were inverted, Collar of abrasion was on medial side, entry wound was going deep in.
4. A lacerated wound of about 2.5cm x 2.5cm was present on back of neck, margins were everted. It was exit wound of Injury No. 3.
5. A lacerated wound of about 1.5cm x 1cm present on left arm 3cm lateral to shoulder joint, margins were inverted, burning and blackening were present, abrasion collar was on upper margins, it was entry wound. I pellet was recovered from wound.
In his opinion, Injuries No. 1 and 2 caused damage to brain which is vital organ and Injuries No. 3 and 4 ruptured blood vessels which are major vessels for supplying blood to the brain and these injuries were sufficient to cause immediate death in ordinary way of life. Probable time elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and postmortem 04 to 07 hours.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant after tendering in evidence certified copy of DNA & Serology Report (Exh.PO), certified copies of Firearms & Tool Marks Examination (Exh.PP & Exh.PP/1), certified copy of Latent Finger Print Examination Report (Exh.PQ), certified copies of Trace Chemistry Analysis Reports (Exh.PR & Exh.PR/1), report of Emergency Service Rescue-1122 (Exh.PS), certified copy of divorce document of Umer Siraj (Exh.PT & Exh.PT/1) and certified copy of divorce document of Zulfiqar Ali (Exh.PU & Exh.PU/1) closed the prosecution’s case.
7. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 342, Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he refuted all the allegations levelled against him and professed his innocence. While answering to question (Why this case is against you and why the PWs have deposed against you?), the appellant replied as under:
“It was a blind murder. I have been involved in this case due to mere suspicion. The PWs are inter se related and they have deposed falsely against me.”
The accused/appellant neither opted to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any defence evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, have given anxious consideration to their arguments and have also scanned the record with their able assistance.
9. The occurrence in this case took place at about 11:00 a.m. and the matter was reported to the ‘police at 12:05 a.m. i.e. just after about one hour of the occurrence. Postmortem examinations of both the deceased were also conducted on the same day at 3:55 p.m. and 04:00 p.m. respectively. In view of such prompt reporting of the matter to the police, we are of the view that there is no question of any consultation or deliberation on the part of the complainant.
10. The ocular account in this case has been furnished by two witnesses i.e. PW-4 Zulfiqar Ali and PW-5 Umer Siraj. Both the PWs are the sons of the deceased and at the time of occurrence they were present at their home along with the deceased. Moreover, both the PWs have reasonably explained their presence at the time and place of occurrence. Even otherwise, place of occurrence and the time of occurrence have not been denied by the accused. Therefore, the presence of both the witnesses at the place of occurrence is neither improbable nor can be doubted and merely on account of their relationship with the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded in the absence of any inconsistency or inherent infirmity in their deposition. In this context, reliance is placed on the judgment reported as Khizar Hayat vs. The State (2011 SCMR 429). The firearm injuries on the persons of the deceased have specifically been attributed to the appellant. We have noted that even in their cross-examination both the eye-witnesses remained consistent on all material aspects of the prosecution’s case and their evidence is fully supported by the medical evidence. We have also observed that the plea of substitution taken on behalf of the appellant remained unproved. Even otherwise, substitution of accused in such like murder case by the complainant is a rare phenomenon. Reliance is placed on Khalid Saif Ullah vs. The State (2008 SCMR 688).
11. Recovery of pistol .30-bore from the appellant is of no avail for the prosecution as in this case the prosecution has failed to bring on record the original report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency and has merely produced photocopy of the said report (Exh.PP), which is inadmissible in evidence being against the mandate of Section 510, Cr.P.C. According to Article 75 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, a document must be proved by primary evidence whereas Article 76 thereof provides some exceptions under which secondary evidence may be permitted to be given in place of the original. The proof of loss of a document is a condition precedent for granting permission to lead secondary evidence. In the present case, neither any application was submitted nor permission obtained for producing photocopy of the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency as secondary evidence. As far as motive in this case is concerned, strained relations between parties has not been denied.
12. Keeping in view all above, we are of the considered view that even after exclusion of recovery, there remains sufficient evidence in the form of confidence inspiring and trustworthy ocular account fully supported by medical evidence against the appellant Ghulam Akbar, therefore, his conviction under Section 302(b), PPC being based upon well-settled principles of appreciation of evidence is maintained. However, in our view it is not a case of capital sentence as there are certain extenuating circumstances in favour of appellant to warrant lesser sentence. Therefore, we are convinced that the appellant in the peculiar circumstances of this case deserves benefit of doubt to the extent of his sentence one out of two provided under Section 302 (b), PPC. It is well-recognized principle by now that accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt as an extenuating circumstance while deciding his question of sentence. Reliance is placed on Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din alias Haji Babu and others vs. The State (2014 SCMR 1034).
13. Resultantly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant Ghulam Akbar under Section 302(b), PPC, his sentence is altered from death to imprisonment for life on two counts with the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.; but the penalty of compensation and the sentence in default thereof awarded to him by the learned trial Court are maintained. With the above modification in the quantum of sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2020 is dismissed.
14. Death sentence of the convict Ghulam Akbar is not confirmed and Murder Reference No. 47 of 2020 is answered in the Negative.
(A.A.K.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments