Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 1159 of 1967, decided on 20th December, 1980

-- Ss. 307/34/342-Attempt to murder-Evidence of prosecution witnesses as regards occurrence consistent and without material discrepancies-Number and nature of injuries suffered by three prosecution witnesses clearly showing petitioner and his com panions having assaulted victims in furtherance of their common intention to kill them-Defence story not inspiring confidence ---Eye-witnesses not appearing to be inimical ---to petitioner to involve him on capital charge of murder-Conviction of petitioner appearing to have been properly recorded and founded on evidence available on record-Revision petition dismissed in circumstances.-[Evidence].

Nemo for Petitioner.

Willayat Hussain Haidri for A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing : 3rd December, 1980.

Muhammad Afzal, Noor Muhammad and Akhtar Khan were tried under sections 307/324/34, P. P. C. by a Section 30 Magistrate of Lahore for making an attempt on the life of Abdul Waheed, P. W. 3, and for causing simple and grievous injuries to Mohammad Latif and Abdul Rashid P. Ws. The learned trial Magistrate, by his judgment, dated 8th July, 1967, acquitted Noor Muhammad and Akhtar Khan of all the charges, but convicted Muhammad Afzal under sections 307/34, P. P. C. and 324, P. P. C. He accordingly sentenced Muhammad Afzal accused under section 307/34, P. P. C. to three years' R. I. and under section 324, P. P. C. to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 300 or, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. It was further directed that the sentences would run concurrently and that out of fine, if recovered, Rs. 100 each would be paid to Abdul Waheed and Abdur Rashid P. Ws. as compensation. Being aggrieved by the said findings, Muhammad Afzal accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which was partly accepted by an Additional Sessions Judge of Lahore who, by judgment, dated 12th October, 1967, whilst maintaining his conviction, reduced his sentence under section 307/34, P. P. C. to two years' R. I. and under section 324, P. P. C. to one year's R. I., both the sentences being ordered to run concurrently. The revision petition of Muhammad Afzal convict, is now before me for disposal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8th July, 1965 at 2 p. m. Muhammad Afzal accused went to Abdul Rashid at the shop of Abdul Wahid brother of Abdul Rashid. There Abdul Majid servant of Abdul Wahid, and Abdul Wahid were present. That shop was situate at Circular Road. Muhammad Afzal accused enquired from Abdul Rashid about Muhammad Siddiq who was previously employed on that shop. Abdul Rashid informed him that his services had been terminated, but Muhammad Afzal accused pressed him to disclose true information. Muhammad Afzal accused also told him that he had to get Rs. 250 from Muhammad Siddiq as the price of the cycle sold to him. Muhammad Afzal accused insisted his demand and got the same reply, whereupon he started abusing and grappling with Abdul Rashid. Abdur Rashid also slapped hire. Abdul Wahid intervened and separated the quarrellers. On the same day at about 7/7-30 p. m. Muhammad Afzal accused came to that shop alongwith Noor Muhammad and Akhtar Khan accused. Abdul Wahid and Abdul Majid P. Ws. were present. Noor Muhammad accused entered the shop. Afzal and Akhtar accused remained outside. Noor Muhammad accused said to Abdul Wahid P. W. as to who had beaten Muhammad Afzal accused. Noor Muhammad accused abused him. Noor Muhammad accused took out knife and gave injuries to Abdul Wahid P. W. in his abdomen. Then Noor Muhammad accused went outside the shop. Abdul Rashid P. W. raised an alarm which attracted Muhammad lqbal P. W. to the spot. Muhammad Afzal accused gave knife blows to Abdul Rashid P. W. Muhammad Latif P. W. reached there, who was injured by Akhtar Khan accused. The injured persons were medically examined and the accused were challaned.

3. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted Noor Muhammad and Akhtar Khan accused on the basis that they were not known to the eye witnesses and since no identification parade was held, they deserved the benefit of doubt. However, as regards Muhammad Afzal accused, the learned Magistrate relying upon the testimony of Abdul Rashid P. W. 1, Abdul Waheed P. W. 3 and Muhammad Latif P. W. 6 the injured witnesses, and Abdul Majid P. W. 4, an independent witness, and the testimony of Dr. Rashid Ahmad P. W. 7, convicted and sentenced Muhammad Afzal accused as stated in para. 1 above.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, likewise relying upon the testimoney of the aforesaid eye-witnesses and the doctor, maintained the conviction of Muhammad Afzal accused.

5. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Notice was issued to the petitioner for 31st August, 1980 which was received by his real brother Muzaffer Hussain, who stated that the petitioner had gone to Mascat and that he would himself appear on the date fixed on behalf of his brother. In view of section 70 of the Cr. P. C. the notice stands adequately served on the petitioner. Sh. Riaz Ahmad Advocate, who is counsel for the petitioner and who has now become the learned Advocate-General Punjab, not cared to put in appearance in the case, though his name has appeared in the cause list thrice. He did not turn up on 6th August, 1980 and 16th November, 1980 and is also absent today. Mr. Willayat Hussain Haidery, Advocate, has appeared for the State. With his assistance, evidence has been read. The evidence of Abdul Rashid P. W. 1, Abdul Waheed P. W. 3, Abdul Majeed P. W. 4, and Muhammad Latif P. W. 6 as regards the occurrence is consistent. There are no material discrepancies in their statement. Muhammad Afzal accused had an altercation with Abdur Rashid P. W. 1 and Abdul Waheed P. W. 3 at 2 p.m. which was before the occurrence which took place at 7 p. m. This altercation was also witnessed by Abdul Majeed P. W. 4, as he having the adjacent shop, saw this earlier incident. Abdur Rashid P. W. 1, Abdul Waheed P. W. 3, and Muhammad Latif P. W. 6, are injured witnesses and their presence cannot be doubted. In any case, all the witnesses are natural witnesses. Abdur Rashid and Abdul Waheed P. Ws. who are brothers, worked at the same shop where the occurrence took place Abdul Majeed P. W. 4, had his shop adjoining to that of Abdur Rasheed P. W. 1, and Abdul Waheed P. W. 3, Muhammad Latif P. W. .6, who worked in a nearby shop, on hearing alarm rushed to rescue Abdur Rashid P. W. etc. and suffered injuries. The number and nature of injuries suffered by the three P. Ws. clearly show that the petitioner and his companions, whoever they were assaulted the victims in furtherance of their common intention to kill them.

6. The defence story does not inspire confidence. The mere fact that Muhammad Siddiq owed Rs. 250 to the petitioner would not induce so many eye-witnesses, who are otherwise not inimical to the petitioner, to involve him on a capital charge of murder. For all these reasons, the conviction of the petitioner appears to have been properly recorded and is founded on evidence available on the record.

7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed. The petitioner is on bail. He is ordered to be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve put the unexpired portion of his sentence.

Revision 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.