PLJ 2025 Cr.C. (Note) 250
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Sardar Akbar Ali, J.
ALAMGIR--Appellant
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. A. No. 232369-J of 2018, decided on 15.9.2025.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
طبی ثبوت-- آنکھ کا حساب-- واقعے کی تفصیلات پر مشتمل اس طرح کی فوری طور پر درج کی گئی ایف آئی آر ایک مضبوط مثبت عنصر ہے کیونکہ اس سے من گھڑت ، مشاورت یا جھوٹے مضمرات کا امکان نمایاں طور پر کم ہو گیا ہے کیونکہ شکایت کنندہ کے پاس کہانی بنانے کا وقت نہیں تھا-یہ سچ ہے کہ شکایت کنندہ (پی ڈبلیو-5) شوہر ہے جبکہ زخمی پی ڈبلیو متوفی خاتون کا بیٹا ہے لیکن اپیل کنندہ کے جھوٹے مضمرات کے لیے کوئی غلط مقصد/دشمنی کی عدم موجودگی میں ، ان کی اعتماد پیدا کرنے والی گواہی ، محض متوفی کے ساتھ ان کے قریبی تعلقات کی وجہ سے مسترد نہیں کی جا سکتی ہے-اگر مقصد اور بازیابی کے ثبوت کو غور سے خارج کر دیا جاتا ہے ، تب بھی استغاثہ نے اپیل کنندہ کے خلاف اپنے کیس کو شک کے سائے سے بالاتر ثابت کر دیا ہے جسے صحیح طور پر سزا سنائی گئی ہے اور مقدمے کی سماعت عدالت کے ذریعے سزا سنائی گئی ہے ۔
----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iv)--Qatl-e-amd--Conviction and sentence--Medical evidence--Ocular account--Such promptly lodged FIR containing details of occurrence, is a strong positive factor as it significantly reduced possibility of fabrication, consultation or false implication for reason that complainant had no time to concoct a story--It is true that complainant (PW-5) is husband whereas injured PW is son of deceased lady but in absence of any ulterior motive/animus for false implication of appellant, their confidence inspiring testimony, cannot be discarded merely due to their close relationship with deceased--If evidence of motive and recovery is excluded from consideration, even then prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt against appellant who has rightly been convicted and sentenced by trial Court through impugned judgment which are maintained--Appeal dismissed.
[Para 6, 7 & 12] A, C & E
2023 SCMR 831; 2023 SCMR 900; 2023 SCMR 1097; 2023 SCMR 723 & 2023 SCMR 795.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
چشم دید گواہ-- غلط شناخت-- کا سوال ۔ ۔ ۔ اپیل کنندہ چشم دید گواہوں کا پڑوسی ہونے کی وجہ سے اس کی غلط شناخت کا سوال پیدا نہیں ہوتا ہے کیونکہ یہ دن کی روشنی کا واقعہ تھا - دفاع کی طرف سے کوئی وجہ اور حالات ریکارڈ پر نہیں لائے گئے ہیں تاکہ اپیل کنندہ کے متبادل اور غلط مضمرات کو دور سے تجویز کیا جا سکے ۔ تسلیم شدہ طور پر ، مجرمانہ انصاف کے نظام میں براہ راست قتل کے الزام میں فرد جرم عائد کیے جانے والے حقیقی مجرم کا متبادل ایک غیر معمولی رجحان ہے ، خاص طور پر ایسے معاملات میں جہاں چشم دید گواہوں نے اپنی آنکھوں کے سامنے اپنے رشتہ داروں کو کھو دیا ہو ۔
----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iv)--Eye-witness--Mistaken identity--Question of--The appellant being neighbor of eye-witnesses question of his mistaken identity does not arise as it was a day light occurrence--No reason and circumstances has been brought on record by defence so as to remotely suggest substitution and false implication of appellant--Admittedly, substitution of real culprit charged directly in a murder charge is a rare phenomenon in system of criminal justice specially in cases where eye witnesses lost their kith and kin before their own eyes. [Para 7] B
2021 SCMR 2009 & 2023 SCMR 487.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
طبی ثبوت-قطر-احمد-- طبی ثبوت مقدمے کی سماعت کے دوران پیش کیے گئے عینی شاہدین کے بیان کو مدد فراہم کرتا ہے - واقعے کے دوران زخمی ہونے والے گواہ کی موجودگی کو ہمیشہ شک سے بالاتر سمجھا جاتا ہے ، کیونکہ اس پر اس کے شخص پر زخموں کی مہر لگی ہوتی ہے ۔
----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iv)--Medical evidence--Qatl-e-amd--The medical evidence provides support to eyewitness account furnished during trial--The presence of a witness, injured during occurrence is always considered well beyond doubt, because it has stamp of injuries on his person. [Para 9] D
NLR 1998 Criminal 687 & 2017 SCMR 1877.
M/s. Ali Hussain and Omais Bhatti, Advocates for Appellant.
Mr. Abdul Rauf Wattoo, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Nemo for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 15.9.2025
Judgment
Alamgir (appellant), along with his co-accused Ghulam Dastgir and Jahangir (since acquitted), was tried in case FIR No. 776, dated 01.09.2011, under Sections 302, 324, 392 and 109, PPC registered at police station Bhikhi, District Sheikhupura lodged by Khalil Ahmad, complainant (PW-5). After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 28.06.2018, has convicted and sentenced Alamgir (appellant) as under:
Under Section 302(b), PPC sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life; also to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the legal heir of Bashiran Bibi deceased under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default thereof to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.
Under Section 324, PPC, sentenced to imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in case of default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months
Under Section 337-F(v), PPC sentenced to imprisonment for three years with payment of Daman of Rs. 50,000/- to Arfan injured.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended in favour of the appellant.
However vide the same judgment, co-accused Ghulam Dastgir and Jahangir were acquitted of the charges.
3. The prosecution was set into motion through application of Khalil Ahmad (PW-5) which formed basis for registration of formal FIR (Ex.PA), according to which he (complainant) is resident of Ferozewattwan and runs the business of milk and has installed furnace for making کھویا in his house. There is house of Jehangir Rehmani (appellant) in front of his house who used to object very often that why complainant (PW-5) has installed furnaces in his house. Appellant also filed a civil suit in District Sheikhupura for getting the furnaces removed but the said suit was dismissed. On the day of occurrence i.e. 01.09.2011, complainant (PW-5) along with his sons Muhammad Irfan (PW-6), Muhammad Ramzan (given up PW) and his wife, namely Mst. Bashiran Bibi were present in their house. At about 10:00 a.m. the appellant duly armed with pistol .30 bore entered their house, who raised Lalkara that we have asked you many a times to remove furnaces but you did not pay any heed so we will teach you a lesson. The appellant made a straight fire with his pistol upon the son of the complainant, namely Muhamınad Irfan (PW-6) for killing him which hit on his right calf who fell down. Then Alamgir (co-accused since acquitted) made firing on Mst. Bashiran Bibi, which landed on the right and left frontal side of chest of Mst. Bashiran Bibi, who smeared with blood and fell on the ground. Thereafter appellant resorted to indiscriminate firing. The complainant party saved their lives by laying on the ground. Alamgir, appellant fled away from the spot while making firing. When the complainant attended his wife she had succumbed to the injuries.
4. After usual investigation report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted before the learned trial Court. When charge sheeted the appellant and his co-accused (since acquitted) denied the charges and pleaded innocence. Prosecution produced as many as twenty-three witnesses and tendered documents Ex.PA to Ex.PY. On close of prosecution case, the accused when examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence. However, they did not produce any witness in defence nor opted to appear in the witness box as required by Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and the trial ended in the terms as detailed in opening paragraph of this judgment.
The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 28.06.2018, found Alamgir (appellant) guilty, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the record with their assistance.
6. Perusal of record shows that the occurrence in the present case took place on 01.09.2011 at about 10:00 a.m., whereas the matter was reported to the police at 10:45 a.m. within forty-five minutes. Such promptly lodged FIR containing details of the occurrence, is a strong positive factor as it significantly reduced the possibility of fabrication, consultation or false implication for the reason that complainant had no time to concoct a story. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as “Aqil versus The State (2023 SCMR 831), “Ali Taj and another versus The State (2023 SCMR 900) and “Muhammad Usman versus The State” (2023 SCMR 1097).
7. While dilating upon the eyewitness account, the question of foremost importance pertains to the acclaimed presence of Khalil Ahmad, complainant (PW-5) and Muhammad Irfan (PW-6) at the spot. As mentioned above the incident took place inside the house of the complainant (PW-5) whereas the other eyewitness namely Muhammad Irfan (PW-6) being son of the complainant was also residing in the same house, thus their presence at the spot cannot be doubted. During this incident Muhammad Irfan (PW-6) also received injury and he was medically examined on the very day of incident by Dr. Ali Umar Mansoor (PW-12). Though the appellant, as per prosecution case was having objection over installing of furnaces for making کھویا by the complainant in his house but admittedly, they were not locked any sort of hard-pitched longstanding enmity and as a necessary consequence the narrators of ocular account cannot be termed as partisan witnesses. Both the eyewitnesses remained consistent in their claim that Alamgir (appellant) resorting to firing upon the deceased and Muhammad Irfan, injured PW-6). Similarly, no legal anomaly is noticeable from the ocular account whereby, Alamgir (appellant) was burdened with the allegation of Shaving made firing upon the deceased and Muhammad Irfan, injured PW. The meticulous examination of the eyewitness account unfolds that both the eye witnesses remained on one page while describing the detail of occurrence and no contradiction from their deposition is discernible about the mode, manner and time of incident. The appellant being neighbor of the eye-witnesses question of his mistaken identity does not arise as it was a day light occurrence. No reason and circumstances has been brought on record by the defence so as to remotely suggest substitution and false implication of the appellant. Admittedly, substitution of real culprit charged directly in a murder charge is a rare phenomenon in the system of criminal justice specially in the cases where eye witnesses lost their kith and kin before their own eyes. Reliance may be placed on “Asfandiyar vs. The State and others” (2021 SCMR 2009) and Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State” (2023 SCMR 487). It is true that complainant (PW-5) is husband whereas Muhammad Irfan, injured PW is son of the deceased lady but in absence of any ulterior motive/animus for false implication of the appellant, their confidence inspiring testimony, cannot be discarded merely due to their close relationship with the deceased. Reliance is placed on “Aman Ullah vs. The State” (2023 SCMR 723) and “Imran Mehmood vs. The State” (2023 SCMR 795). Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any major contradiction or discrepancy in the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses, which could shatter the basis fabric of the case in its entirety.
8. The ocular account is further strengthened by long absondance of the appellant proved through Javed Iqbal, Sub Inspector (PW-20) and Muhammad Arshad, Sub Inspector (PW-21), non-bailable warrants of arrest (Ex.PE/1) and proclamation (Ex.PJ/1) issued against the appellant and reports thereon.
9. Medical evidence in this case was furnished by Dr. Ali Umar Mansoor (PW-12) and Dr. Saima Mehboob (PW-18). Dr. Saima Mehboob (PW-18) while posted as WMO DHQ Hospital, Sheikhupura conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Bashiran Bibi, aged about 55 years. During post-mortem examination she observed following two injuries on the person of Mst. Bashiran Bibi, deceased:-
“1. It was fire-arm wound of entry .5 x .5 cm through right side of upper chest. 3 cm from mid line. Bullet recovered from note incision from back of right side of mid chest. On dissection this injury damaged skin mussel blood vessel and right lung under lying rib was fractured.
2. Fire-arm wound of entry .5. x .5 cm through left side of the upper part of left breast. 7 cm from mid line. Bullet recovered from note incision on back of lateral aspect of left side of chest. On dissection this injury damaged skin mussels blood vessels left lung and heart. Under lying rib was also fractured.”
According to opinion of doctor above injuries were sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course of nature. She further deposed that probable time between injury and death was imminent. Between death and post-mortem was about 6 to 12 hours. Moreover, time given by the doctor that elapsed between injury and death coincides with the time given in the complaint (Ex.PB). Insofar as evidence furnished by Dr. Ali Umar Mansoor (PW-12) qua injury of Muhammad Irfan (PW-6) is concerned though learned counsel for the appellant contended that possibility of friendly hand could not be ruled out suffice it to say that the appellant never moved application for re-examining injuries sustained by Muhammad Irfan (PW-6). The aforementioned medical evidence is found to be impeccable in nature and during arguments learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any flaw in it. The medical evidence provides support to the eyewitness account furnished during trial. The presence of a witness, injured during the occurrence is always considered well beyond doubt, because it has stamp of injuries on his person. Reliance in this regard can be made to the cases reported as Jahangir etc, v. The State (NLR 1998 Criminal 687) and Azhar Nawaz v. The State (2017 SCMR 1877).
10. As per prosecution case weapon of offence ie. Pistol (P-6) has been recovered on the lead of the appellant on 27.04.2015 but this recovery without any matching report with crime empties taken into possession by Javed Iqbal, Sub-Inspector (PW-10) remains totally inconsequential because of negative PFSA report (Exh. PX). So far as motive is concerned though the complainant has set up a motive in this case that he deals in milk and has set up furnaces in his house which was objected to by the appellant party but the prosecution has failed to bring on record any documentary proof in this regard. The learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the motive apparently for justifiable reason.
11. Appellant while denying his involvement in the present case in his statement recorded u/S. 342, Cr.P.C. stated that he is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case, rather occurrence has been committed by some unknown accused. Appellant has neither opted to appear under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any defence evidence in support of his defence plea which has rightly been discarded by the trial Court with sufficient reasons.
12. In view of above, if evidence of motive and recovery is excluded from consideration, even then prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt against appellant (Alamgir) who has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court through the impugned judgment which are maintained. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is given to the appellant (Alamgir). This criminal appeal filed by the appellant, having no merits is hereby dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments