Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 606 of 1976, decided on 29^th Match 1976.

-----Evidence, appreciation of ‑Injured prosecution witness and eye‑witnesses of occurrence fully supporting prosecution case and their testimony further corroborated by medical evidence‑‑‑Such witnesses haying no personal ill‑will or rancour against accused to falsely involve him‑‑Mere relationship of prosecution witnesses with victim, held, would not disentitle them to be considered as truthful witnesses‑Conviction and sentence maintained in circumstances Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307.‑[Evidence].

Qurban Sadiq Ikram for Petitioner.

Abut Fatah for the State.

Date of hearing: 21st March 1977.

Noor Muhammad alias Noora was tried by Maulvi Muhammad Aslam, A. D. C. (G)/Magistrate Section 30, Mianwali, under section. 307. P. P. C. The learned trial Magistrate vide his judgment dated 14‑4‑1976, found him guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo four, years' R. I. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, he filed an appeal before Mr. Muhammad Hussain Kazi. Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali who vide his judgment dated 17‑6‑1976, while dismissing his appeal, upheld his conviction and maintained the sentence.

2: Hence, this revision petition.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 16‑8‑1971, near about sunset time Khan Zaman complainant was going to village Gulmiri on a cycle. When he reached near Chah Azamwala, he saw Noor Muhammad petitioner and one Muhammad Siddiq who was not challaned by the police, belabour ing Ayub Khan, the injured witness, with a knife held .by the petitioner, Muhammad Siddiq gave him fists blows. Ayub Khan P. W. suffered 4/5 knife injuries, out of which two were found grievous inflicted on his chest. It was providential that Sher Zaman and Khanan P. Ws. reached at the spot and their appearance made the assailants run away. As these two witnesses were riding a tonga at that time, they put the injured into the tonga and carried him to D. H. Q. Hospital, Mianwali. The injured' was medically examined at 9‑30 p.m. On the basis of statement made by Khan Zaman P. W., a case under section, 307, P. P. C. was registered against the petitioner and Muhammad Siddiq who was later on let off by the police as he was found innocent during the investigation.

4. The motive as set up by the prosecution in this case is that there was some bad blood between Ayub Khan' injured witness and the petitioner as well as Muhammad Siddiq his friend, over the payment of Rs. 3 which, Ayub Khan Ps W. had given on loan to Muhammad Siddiq anal ho was reluctant to pay back the same. It was also stated that about 3/4 days prior to the occurrence, a quarrel took place between Muhammad Siddiq and Ayub Khan injured, over this issue. It was further claimed that Noor Muhammad petitioner being a friend of Muhammad Siddiq, had participated in this crime.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly pressed the point of mistaken identity. According to him the occurrence did not take place as stated by the prosecution near about sunset time, but it was something like 8 p.m. that Ayub Khan injured fell victim to some assailant or assailants whom he could not identify due to dark hour of night and after deliberation that his close relations Sher Zaman and Khan Zaman P. Ws. put up a false case against the petitioner due to enmity. He has also assailed the integrity of the eye witnesses who according to him, were closely related to the injured person and vehemently stressed that Noor Muhammad petitioner was made victim of the substitution as he was suspected of carrying on illicit liaison with the daughter of Azeem, a close relation of Khan Zaman P. W. A grievance was also made about the conduct of the injured witnesses as well as the P. Ws. who had fully implicated Muhammad Siddiq who during the course of investi gation was found by the police to be innocent, not present at the spot at the relevant time but was found to be at Lahore. According to the learned counsel, the conduct of the P. Ws. in telling such a naked lie disentitles them to be considered as truthful witnesses.

6. I have given my anxious thought to all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and first of all I would attend to the main argument with regard to the possibility of mistaken identity. To show that the occurrence did not actually take place near sunset time, as stated by the P. Ws. learned counsel referred to the time and the admission of the injured P. W. in the hospital given in the medico legal certificate. It was mentioned as 9‑30 p.m. It was argued that as the distance between the place of occurrence and the hospital was only four miles, therefore, it was not possible for a vehicle like Conga to take more than 12 hours in reaching the hospital. This, according to the learned counsel, would place the time of occurrence near about 8 p.m. This proposition is nothing but a conjectural one as there is nothing in the cross‑examination or exa mination‑in‑chief of the P. Ws. that the time consumed in their travel from the place of occurrence to the hospital was not more than 1 hours. Even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that the time spent during the journey was 12 hours and the occurrence probably took place at 8 p.m. on the 16th August, it could not be called a pitched dark hour. The sun usually sets at about 7 p.m. during those days but one cannot fail to take notice of the fact that in the suburbs and in the open fields, sufficient light remains over the horizons in which one can easily see the moving figures even from a distance. In this particular case the assailant had a close contact with the victim on whom he inflicted a number of injuries aria thus it would not be difficult for him to identify the assailant particularly when he was previously known to him. Therefore, I have got no hesitation to repel the argument so advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was a case of mistaken identity.

7. With regard to the evidentiary value of the two P. Ws. who have fully supported the case of the prosecution, both the Courts below have held that they were disinterested and independent witnesses as they had on personal ill‑will or rancour against the petitioner as to falsely involve him in this case. 'Their mere relationship with the victim would not disentitle them to be considered as truthful witnesses. Undeniably Sultan Ahmed Head Constable P. W. 7 who investigated this case, found that Muhammad Siddiq did not participate in this crime and was present in Lahore when this occurrence took place, but his would, by no means destroy the case of the prosecution in entirety as this very witness had stated on oath that he was fully satisfied that the petitioner was the actual culprit who had inflicted injuries ors Ayub Khan injured P'. W. The reason for the involvement of Muhammad Siddiq, is not difficult to find as the tendency in rural society which has been taken judicial notice of by the superior Courts of this country, is always to widen the net and in this case Ayub Khan injured P. W. and his relations fell to the temptation of adding him as one of the accused as there was bad blood between them over the repayment of loan advanced by Ayub Khan P. W. to him. Keeping in view this tendency, both the Courts below have sifted the grain from the chaff and have come to a positive conclusion that the prosecution has established its case against the petitioner on the strength of the evidence of injured witness corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the other witnesses who witnessed this occurrence.

8. The result of the above discussion is that I do not find any merit in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is maintained.

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.