Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 1314 of 1967, decided on 7th November 1968.

S. 307‑Eye‑witnesses, inimical and interested, happening to be inmates of house where occurrence took place‑Testimony of such witnesses supported by circumstances of case, number of assailants and injuries on person of deceased Accused, held, rightly convicted.

Nazir and others v. The State P L D 1962 S C 269 and Thoba and another v. The State P L D 1963 S C 41 ref.

Aftab Farrukh for Petitioner.

Altaf Sikandar for A.‑G. for the State.

The present petitioner was named along with one Khushia as an accused person for having inflicted injuries on Khushi Muhammad (P. W. 6) with hatchets on the night intervening 17th and 18th of October 1965, at about 1 a.m. in Chak No. 372/JB, Police Station Gojra in the District of Lyallpur. Before the accused could be sent up for trial, the co‑accused of the petitioner, Khushia, died. The petitioner was, however, tried and convicted under section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. He was sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur.

2. The motive for the attack, as alleged by the prosecution, is that Fazal Din a maternal uncle of Khushi Muhammad P. W. 6, the injured person, was murdered and the present petitioner along with his deceased co‑accused and some others was proceeded against for the commission of that offence. The petitioner and his co‑accused Khushia had been granted bail in that case. It is stated that Khushi Muhammad was vigorously pursuing the case against Bashir and his co‑accused. Bashir and his deceased co‑accused Khushia attacked Khushi Muhammad in his own house in order to punish him for pursuing the case against them. The eye‑witnesses of the occurrence, apart from the injured person Khushi Muhammad (P. W. 6) are Muhammad Iqbal (P. W. 1) who is the son of Khushi Muhammad, Mst. Hajran (P. W. 3) wife of Khushi Muhammad, Mst. Nemat (P. W. 4) who is the sister of Khushi Muhammad and Sardar Muhammad (P. W. 5) a brother of Khushi Muhammad. The injured person was carried to Gojra hospital where the doctor in charge wrote a ruqqa to the police. A. S. I. Muhammad Ali came to the hospital. Since the injured person was not in a position to make a statement, the A. S. I., recorded the statement of Sardar Muhammad (P. W. 5) at 4‑30 a.m. who also produced a medical certificate before him.

3. At the trial, the above‑named eye‑witnesses supported the prosecution case and no serious discrepancy has been pointed out in their statements by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We find in the testimony of Dr. Rafiq Hussain, who at the relevant time was the Assistant Medical Officer at Gojra, that Khushi Muhammad had the following three injuries on his person :‑

(1) An incised wound 4 " x 1 " cutting the upper jaw into pieces beginning just below the left eye to the upper lip.

(2) An incised wound 6" x 2" below the lower jaw beginning from the middle of the left cheek to the right side of lower lip. The lower jaw had been cut into many pieces.

(3) An incised wound 4" x 1 " on the chin cutting the under lying bone.

The pieces of bone and teeth which were removed by the doctor were handed over to the police. All the injuries were found to be grievous and had been caused with sharp‑edged weapon.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a legal point. He submits that the entire ocular testimony in this case is of interested nature and unless there is some confirmatory circumstance forthcoming from the record, the conviction cannot be maintained. It is correct that there is a background of enmity between the petitioner and the family of the injured person and according to the learned counsel the testimony of inimical witnesses cannot be made the basis of conviction unless there are some circumstances to convince the Court that what they stated is true. It is also urged by the learned counsel with reference to the cross‑examination of Khushi Muhammad (P. W. 6) that the allegation of the prosecution that Khushi Muhammad was pursuing the murder case of his uncle, does not appear to be correct. He in this connection points out that the application for cancellation of bail in the murder case was given by Naqashband another person, and that Khushi Muhammad could not come to the judicial officer before whom the case was proceeding.

5. It is established that Fazal Din was the maternal uncle of Khushi Muhammad (P. W. 6). The wife of Khushi Muhammad is the brother's daughter of Fazal Din, Sardar Muhammad (P. W. 5) the brother of Khushi Muhammad is married to the daughter of Fazal Din with whose murder Bashir petitioner was charged. Therefore, an inference can safely be drawn that the injured person and his family members were naturally interested in prosecuting the case against Bashir. We further find in the statement of Sardar Muhammad that some time before the occurrence, he was warned by one Fazal Muhammad that he should abstain from prosecuting the case against Bashir or he will come to grief.

6. The proposition of law canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the testimony of inimical witnesses is not to be made the basis of conviction unless there are confirmatory circumstances is correct. In this case, however, we find that all the witnesses who appeared at the trial to support the prosecution case are the inmates of the house and are natural witnesses. Muhammad Iqbal (P. W. 1) was sleeping at a distance of three Karams from his father. Sardar Muhammad's charpai was at a distance of 2/3 karams from the charpai of Muhammad Iqbal. The presence of any of the eye‑witnesses in the house has not been contested by the accused. It would be natural for a man who is asleep to shriek when he receives a sudden blow, and the statement of Muhammad Iqbal that he got up when he heard the cry of his father, appears to be correct in the circumstances of this case.

7. I see no reason to interfere with the assessment of evidence made by the Courts below in this case. It was held by the Supreme Court in Nazir and others v. The State (PLD 1962 SC 269) that corroboration of the interested testimony need not come from the mouth of an independent witness, but anything in circumstances which tends to satisfy the Court that the witnesses have spoken the truth, would be a sufficient corroboration. Two persons are said to have taken part in inflicting injuries and there are three injuries on the person of the deceased. The number of persons named, therefore, does not indicate that some exaggeration was made with regard to the participants of the crime. In Thoba and another v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 41), it was observed by the Supreme Court that in order to sustain conviction on a capital charge, the ocular evidence must come from unimpeachable source. But if that source is not available, it must be supported by some circum stances, such as might serve to overcome the inherent doubt by which such evidence is necessarily affected.

8. In view of what has been said above, I find that the petitioner was rightly convicted. The sentence of four years in view of the nature of the injuries is not excessive. His conviction and sentence are maintained. The revision petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.