Find a Lawyer

Criminal Application No. 2 of 1968, heard on 18th September 1968.

S. 307‑Attempt to murder Evidence of witnesses coupled with circumstances brought on record leaving no room for doubt that accused attempted to shoot complainant for dispute over property‑Conviction and sentence maintained.

Muhammad Zafar for Appellant.

Muhammad Haleem A. A.‑G. for the State.

Dates of hearing : 17th and 18th September 1968.

Tire appellant, Arbab Abdur Rauf has been convicted under section 307, P. P. C., and sentenced to suffer rigorous im prisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. He has filed this appeal.

1. The facts of the prosecution case briefly are that the appellant and complainant Arbab Muhammad Omar had a dispute over certain property for which cases had been filed in Court. Arbab Muhammad Umar had houses both in Quetta and Sibi. He used to live in summer in Quetta and in winter in Sibi. On the 24th December 1964, while Arbab Muhammad Umar was sitting on the shop of Sadruddin, at Sibi, where Manzoor Ahmad was also sitting, the appellant came there and took out his pistol and pulling the trigger fired at him. Arbab Muhammad Umar and Manzoor Ahmad both heard the click of the trigger but the pistol did not fire. The appellant thereafter left the shop of Sadruddin and started running. Arbab Muhammad Umar and Manzoor Ahmad pursued the appellant raising cries catch him, catch him'. Police Constable Muhammad Hassan who was on traffic duty and Head Constable Gul Faraz also joined the party of the pursuers. Murad Ali also came on cries and assisted others in catching the appellant. The appellant was ultimately caught by Muhammad Hassan and Gut Faraz after he had thrown away his pistol on directions from Muhammad Hassan. The appellant was thereafter taken to the police station where Arbab Muhammad Umar also reached. Arbab Muhammad Umar lodged his first information report Exh. P/A at 11 a. m. at Saddar Police Station Sibi, the incident having occurred at 10‑45 a.m. on the same day. Muhammad Hassan who had picked up the pistol produced the same be fore the Station House Officer who secured it under mashirnama Exh. P/B in the presence of mashies Murad Ali and Manzoor Ahmad. Two live cartridges‑one from the barrel of the pistol and the other from its chamber‑were also recovered in the presence of the same mashirs. Five live cartridges were also recovered from the person of the appellant for which mashirnama Exh. P/C was prepared in the presence of the same mashirs. The statements of the witnesses were also recorded. As the appellant had injuries on his person he was sent to the Medical Officer for examination and treatment. After the usual investiga tion was concluded, the appellant was challaned and ultimately convicted as stated above.

3. The appellant, when questioned in the committal Court, admitted practically the whole of the prosecution case. He admitted his presence at the shop of Sadruddin. He also admitted having run away from the shop up to the Jinnah Road at Sibi. He also admitted having fallen on the way near a bed of roses. He also admitted having been caught by Muhammad Hassan, Gul Faraz and others. The only plea taken by him in the committal Court was that Arbab Muhammad Umar had sent for him from Quetta on the pretext of settling up the dispute with him over property. According to him, on the day of the incident, while he was passing by the shop of Sadruddin, he saw Arbab Muhammad Umar sitting there. Arbab Muhammad Umar is then said to have called him and told him not to pursue the matter in Court in regard to the dispute on property and on the appellant refusing to do so Arbab Muhammad Umar took out the pistol from his pocket and attempted to shoot at him. The appellant further stated that in the process of snatching the Pistol from Arbab Muhammad Umar he found it falling on the ground which he picked up and then ran away. He has also said practically the same thing in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. in the Sessions Court. He has examined Lal Muhammad as defence witness.

4. The prosecution for the purpose of proving their case have in main placed reliance upon the evidence of Arbab Muhammad Umar P. W. 1 and Manzoor Ahmad P. W. 2. Both of them have unanimously stated that on the day of the incident at about 10‑45 a.m. the appellant came to the shop of Sadruddin where both of them were sitting and attempted to shoot at Arbab Muhammad Umar with a pistol he had in his hand. They have also stated that they heard the click of the trigger of the pistol but as it did not fire, the appellant left the shop and started running. They have further stated that they followed the appellant raising cries on account of which Murad Ali P. W. 5, Gul Faraz P. W. 4 and Muhammad Hassan P. W. 3 were attracted. They have also stated that the appellant on the way got entangled into the bed of flowers and fell on the ground. They have also stated that Muhammad Hassan caught him after the appellant threw away his pistol. The evidence of these witnesses receives support from the evidence of Muhammad Hassan P. W. 3, Gul Faraz P. W. 4 and Murad Ali P. W. 5. All these three witnesses are disinterested except that Muhammad Hassan and Gul Faraz are police constable and head constable respectively. The evidence of these witnesses stands further supported by the recovery of pistol which contained two live cartridges‑one in its chamber and its barrel for which mashirnama Exh. P/B was prepared in the presence of mashirs Murad Ali and Manzoor Ahmad. The evidence of the witnesses also receives support from the fact of five live cartridges hav ing been secured from the possession of the appellant for which mashirnama Exh. P/C was prepared in the presence of the same mashirs. The injuries on the person of the appellant also lends support to the case of the prosecution. Dr. Nasim whose evidence has been brought on record as Exh. P/D, has also stated that the appellant, when examined by him, bad five injuries on his person. The entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution has been fully supplemented by the admissions made by the appellant both in the committal Court and in the Sessions Court. The appellant has admitted the whole of the prosecution case but taken up the only plea that instead of he having fired at Arbab Muhammad Umar it was Arbab Muhammad Umar who fired at him, The sole question therefore for discussion for the purpose of disposing of this appeal is whether it was Arbab Muhammad Umar who fired at the appellant or it was the appellant who fired at Arbab Muhammad Umar as alleged by the prosecution. Apart from the evidence of the witnesses who are disinterested and for which there is no reason for disbelieving it the circumstances appearing on the record also militate against the acceptance of the theory put forward by the appellant. It is impossible to believe that Arbab Muhammad Umar would call the appellant at the shop of Sadruddin and shoot at him and yet be deprived of his pistol by the appellant although one of his friends Manzoor Ahmad was standing by his side. It is also impossible to believe that the appellant would succeed in depriving Arbab Muhammad Umar of his pistol and then run away with it. What is more impossible to believe is that if the appellant had deprived Arbab Muhammad Umar of his pistol, there was no earthly reason for the appellant to leave the shop of Sadruddin and run away. After Arbab Muhammad Umar had been deprived of his pistol and the appellant had got posses sion of it he obviously had got better of Arbab Muhammad Umar and he had no reason whatever for running away from the shop. Even if it be assumed that for some reasons known to him he left the shop of Sadruddin, he had no reason to continue to run after he was pursued by several persons and after there was no apprehension left from Arbab Muhammad Umar. The conduct of the appellant in running away from the shop of Sadruddin is inconsistent with the natural course of human conduct especially in view of the evidence of Muhammad Hassan P. W. 3 who when repeatedly went on calling the appellant to throw way his pistol. The circumstance that Arbab Muhammad Umar went on raising cries after the appellant had run away would also indicate that the theory put forward by the appellant is not true. The evidence of the witnesses coupled with the circumstances detailed above and brought on the record, in my opinion, leaves no room for doubt that the appellant had attempted to shoot at Arbab Muhammad Umar for the dispute he had on property wit him. On this view of the matter, I see no substance in the appeal and find no reason for interference. The appeal filed by the appellant consequently stands dismissed.

Appeal 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.