Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 37 and Murder. Reference No. 7 of 1981 (R. W. P.), heard on 22nd February, 1983.
‑‑S. 302/34 ‑ Recovery‑One of recovery witnesses won over-- Accused not using weapon in commission of crime‑Origin of blood found disintegrated as such could not be determined‑Trial Court, held, rightly kept recovery out of consideration as a corroborative piece of evidence.‑[Recovery].
‑‑S. 302/34‑Eye‑witnesses‑Contention that none of eye‑witnesses saw occurrence as informant a big landlord and not supposed to plough his own land and that 5.45 p. m. was not time for such type of work as generally villagers plough land in morning, held, has no force‑Landlord owning tractor can plough land himself and at any time during day.
‑‑S. 302/34‑Medico‑legal report‑Name of informant A written in Medico‑legal Report after scoring name of M‑Doctor denying allegation of doing same at instance of police‑Absence of infor mant at time of making of entry not suggested to Doctor‑Scoring of name of M, held, by no means suggests that same was done at a later stage at instance of prosecution and that informant A did not bring injured to hospital‑Non‑production of M by defence does not prove that M brought injured to hospital.
‑‑‑‑S. 302‑False implication‑Witnesses working in field near scene of occurrence as such natural witnesses of occurrence--‑Day time occurrence‑Substitution of real culprit, held, a rare phenomenon in circumstances.
‑‑S, 302/34‑-‑Civil as well as criminal litigation going on between informant and accused‑Simply because witness mukhtar of infor mant, held, would not falsely rope in accused on a capital charge having no personal grudge.
‑‑‑S. 302/34‑False implication‑‑Roping of accused falsely in murder case for not paying bill of some telephone calls made by him, held, difficult to believe.
‑‑S. 302/34‑Wajtakar witness‑Witnesses having no axe to grind-- Witnesses neither related to deceased nor having enmity with accused to rope them on a false murder charge‑Testimony of such witnesses, held, cannot be doubted.‑[Witness].
‑‑S. 302/34‑Contention that register" meant for cycle hiring waste not properly bound and even not regularly maintained and that there were number of overwritings as such should not be relied upon and that story of hiring of cycle and its recovery was police padding, held, has no force‑Such registers are mere memorandum and generally in small towns cycles are given on hire to those who are residents of same place and are not totally strangers to town and its people.
‑‑S. 302/34‑Alibi, plea of‑Accused not having past history of any; mental ailment entitling him to admission to mental hospital on 3rd" day of occurrence‑Medicines provided were mere sedative‑Doctor, specialist in mental diseases and incharge of mental hospital, not describing ailment by name of any serious mental disease‑Conduct of doctor open to question earlier for falsifying official record--- Doctor not considering case fit for admission to mental hospital and only at request of accused's father prepared to admit accused --Doctor advises patients for admission to hospital and conscientious doctor would not admit patient to hospital just because patient so desires‑Doctor not mentioning details of mental health of accused requiring regular attendance in hospital ‑ Evidence of doctor to support plea of alibi, held, not reliable.
---S. 8‑Alibi, plea of----False plea of alibi, held, an instance of relevant conduct of accused and a confirmatory circumstance of evidence against accused.‑[Alibi]
‑‑S. 302/34‑ Sentence‑Overwhelming case against accused' ands their guilt proved‑Conviction and sentence maintained‑Accused not using weapon, sentence of life imprisonment to such accused not enhanced.‑[ Sentence].
Kh. Sultan Ahmad, Kh. Zia‑ud‑Din and M. A. Ghani for Appellants.
Ch. Inayat Ullah Cheema for A.‑G. for the State.
M. B. Zaman for the Complainant.
Dates of hearing: 20th, 21st and 22nd February, 1983.
.‑Khalid Javed (31/32) and his friend Khalid Iqbal (22) were tried for the murder of Muhammad Halim, a real uncle of the former accused. They were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. on 17th May, 1981, by Mr. Muhammad Mian Qureshi, Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan. Khalid Javed was sentenced to death and to a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default to undergo R. I. for one year. Khalid lqbal was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fined Rs. 2,000 in default to undergo one year R. I. further. The appeals of the convicts, the connected murder reference and the revision for the enhancement of sentence are before us.
2. 1n this case Khalid Javed's father Yaseen and Dr. M. A. A. Aziz who was a defence witnesses of Khalid Javed's plea of alibi were also sent up for trial for the conspiracy of murder, but on 9th September, 1981 i.e. much before the commencement of the trial in this case, they were acquitted by the trial Court under section 265 (K) of the Cr. P. C.
2. Both Civil and Criminal cases were pending between the parties of this case. Muhammad Halim (deceased) was pursuing the litigation on behalf of the complainant party. This, according to the prosecution, was the motive in this case. . In the evening at 6 p. m. on 12th August, 1977 Muhammad Azim (informant) was on his tractor which he bad parked on the Khanpur bye‑pass road adjacent to his land. His brother Muhammad Haleem deceased was standing on the road giving directions to his servant Abdul Ghani who was preparing the furrows in the field. Just then Khalid Javed and Khalid lqbal accused appeared there on a cycle. Khalid lqbal caught hold of Haleem in a Japha from the front. Khalid Javed inflicted two knife blows to him on his left leg. On the alarm of P. W. Muhammad Haleem, Muhammad Azim leaving his tractor there rushed towards the place of occurrence. Abdul Ghani also ran towards them. The two accused fled away on the cycle. Muhammad Haleem fell down. Abdul Majid who was coming on a cycle had also reached there and had witnessed the occurrence. The witnesses brought Muhammad Haleem to the Civil Hospital, Khanpur in a tractor trolly. On reaching there Muhammad Haleem died. P. W. 14 Muhammad Azim went to Police Station, Khanpur situated at a distance of two furlongs from the place of occurrence. He made report Exh. P. A. at 6 40 p. m. the same day to P. W. 18 Mahmood‑ul‑Hassan, S. I. After registering the case the S. I. went to the hospital, prepared the necessary documents and sent the dead body for its post‑mortem examination.
On his arrival at the hospital Muhammad Haleem who was then alive was examined by P. W. 1 Dr. Muhammad Afzal Hashmi, Medical Officer, at 63‑0 p.m. the same day. He noticed the following injuries on him: ‑
(1) One incised wound 2 " x 2/3" deep to wound No. 2 on the back of middle and lower third junction of the thigh. There was a cut in the dhoti worn. The wound was actively bleeding and the patient was in profound shock and restlessness. This was entry wound.
(2) One incised wound 2/3' x and deep to injury No. 1 on the inner side of lower 1/3rd of the thigh. There was a distance of 6 " between injuries Nos. 1 and 2. This was exit wound of injury No. 1.
(3) One incised wound 1 " x " deep to injury No. 4 on the upper part of the outside of left calf. There was cut in the dhoti worn.
This was entry wound
(4) One incised wound x 1/5" deep to injury No. 3 slightly lower and 4 inches inner to injury No. 3 on the inner side of left calf. This was exit wound of injury No. 3.
The doctor observed that Muhammad Halim was brought to the hospital at 6‑30 p. m. and be expired at 6‑34 p.m. Exh. P. C. is the medico‑legal report.
3. On the following day at 7.00 a. m. the said doctor held the autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Halim and noticed the same injuries on it which be found on Muhammad Halim on the previous evening. In this opinion Muhammad Haleem died due to severe bleeding caused by injuries Nos. 2 and 3, which cut the big blood vessels in the leg of the deceased. The two injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
4. P. W. 18 Mahmood‑ul‑Hassan, S. I. went to the place of occurrence on 13th August, 1977. He collected blood‑stained earth from there. It was made into a sealed parcel through Memo. Exh. P. G. attested by P. W. 14 Muhammad Azim, P. W. 16 Abdul Ghani and the Investigating Officer. He also took into possession Kassi (P. 6) from there through Memo. Exh. P. N. attested by the same aforesaid witnesses. Nine documents in proof of previous litigation were produced before the S. I. by P. W. 14 Muhammad Azim (informant). There are Exhs. P. H. 1-9. The S. I. took them into possession vide Memo. Exh. P. H. attested by the same aforesaid witnesses.
5. Khalid lqbal accused's application for bail before arrest was rejected. He was arrested by Mahboob‑ul‑Hassan S. I. on 22nd August 1977. P. W. 17 Syed Abdul Rehman, S. I. arrested Khalid Javed accused from the Mental Hospital, Lahore. During the investiga tion on 23rd August. 1977 Mahmood‑ul‑Hassan, S. I. took into possession cycle (P. 4) and register (P. 5) from the shop of P. W. 9 Muhammad Akhtar who had given the cycle on hire to Javed Iqbal accused. These were taken into possession through Memo. Exh. P. K. attested by P. W. 9 Ahmad Din. P. W. 10 Abdul Hameed, Riaz Ahmad (given up) and the Investigating Officer. On 23rd August, 1977 Khalid Iqbal got recovered chhuri (P. 3) from a sirkanda bush. It was made into a sealed parcel through Memo. Exh. P. J. attested by the Investigating Officer, P. W. 10 Abdul Hameed and Riaz Ahmad (given up as having been won. over). After completing the investigation the accused were sent up for trial.
6. Both accused denied guilt. Admitting his relationship with the deceased and denying his friendship with co‑accused, Khalid Javed said that there was litigation between his father on one side and Azim and his father on the other. According to him, there was no litigation between the deceased and his father: He also showed ignorance about the litiga tion between Khalid Iqbal's father and‑ the deceased or the informant. He asserted that the case was foisted against him due to litigation and enmity between his grandfather, Haji Ghulam Muhammad and informant Muhammad Azim. It may be mentioned here that both, accused were examined twice because some of the prosecution witnesses were cross- examined later. In his subsequent statement recorded about one and a half month after the first statement, Khalid Javed explained the case as under: ‑
"Since 1972 I have been suffering from some sort of mental instability that affected to some extent my educational career and I got myself treated during college career. I was also issued medical treatment book from the University authority. On 12th August. 1977 I was present at Lahore and seriously feeling mental instability and for that purpose I contacted Dr. A. A. Aziz at his residence and was prescribed some medicines for my treatment by him after paying his professional fee of Rs. 110 but I did not get recovered. Dr. A. A. Aziz visited me personally at my residence on 12th August, 1977 in the evening and subsequently I got admit ted in the Mental Hospital, Lahore on the night between 13th/14th August 1977 for my regular treatment. The same treatment was given to me during my detention in the judicial lock‑up. I tender in evidence certified copy of the order of High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 680‑Q of 1978, dated 16th October, 1978 Exh. D. F. copy of the order of High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 681.Q of 1978 dated 16th October, 1978 Exh. D, G., copy of the order of Magistrate dated 24th May, 1980 in case State v. Muhammad Yasin under section 107/150, Cr. P. C. Exh. D. H., copy of the order of Magistrate dated 9th August, 1979 in case State v. Muhammad Yasin and others, under section 225/186. P. P. C. Exh. D. J., certified copy of the application, dated 3rd May. 1978. Exh. D. K. of Muhammad Azim, to the Vice‑Chancellor of the University of Engineering Punjab, Original prescription dated 12th August, 1977 by Dr. A. A. Aziz, Exh. D. L., Receipt of Rs. 110 issued by Dr. A. A. Aziz Exh. D. M. dated 12th August, 1977. Original treatment book issued by the Punjab University of Engineering Exh. D. N. certified copy of application of Muhammad Shafi against Majid Jamil A. C. and others Exh. D. O.
Khalid Iqbal accused also denied friendship with Khalid Javed accused. He admitted the litigation between his father and Muhammad Azim (informant). Denying the recovery he said that the case was foisted against him due to the litigation between his father and Muhammad Azim (informant). He produced another copy of application (Exh. D. P.) of Mst. Fatima made against Muhammad Azim and others in a civil suit re : Mst. Fatima v. Muhammad Shaft for dissolution of marriage. He led no evidence in defence. Khalid Javed examined two defence witnesses.
7. D. W. 1, Dr. M. Khurshidul Hakim, Senior Medical Officer, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, deposed that being a Senior Medical Officer, University of Engineering, Lahore since 1961, he knew Khalid Javed accused who was a student there. He explained that the University had issued medical treatment book (Ex. D. N.) to Khalid Javed and on 23rd February, 1972 Khalid Javed had appeared before him for treatment and was prescribed phenobarbitone tablets and other medicines. He made entry Exh. D. N. 1 ' in his book. He also made other entries against him relating to the year 1972. D. W. 2 Dr. M. A. A. Aziz, Ex‑Medical Superintendent, Mental Hospital, Lahore, deposed that on 12th August, 1977 he was Medical Superintendent, Government Mental Hospital, Lahore. Khalid Javed accused came to him at his residence at noon with his father to consult him for mental ailment. After examination he issued prescription Exh. D. L. and Exh. D. M. receipt for the fee that he charged. On the same day at 6 p. m. on the request of the accused, be visited him at his house and advised him to continue with the treatment as prescribed by him. The same night Khalid Javed's father brought him at his residence and asked him to admit his son in the hospital, but the witness told him that admission was not possible on a Friday and asked him to make an application to him the following day. Consequently, on the following day he allowed admission to Khalid Javed in the Mental Hospital. According to Dr. A. A. Aziz, he had pres cribed Tryptanol 25 m. g. three times daily, two capsule multivitamin with minerals one daily and stress Capsul. These medicines were prescribed him because of the accute depression of Khalid Javed. Pheno barbitone was prescribed for epiletic fits and to quieten down aggression.
8. Disbelieving the alibi evidence, trial Court relied on the evidence of the motive, the ocular testimony, the wajtakar evidence and the evidence of the recovery of cycle P. 4, which the accused hired from Akhtar Cycle Works Khanpur. It, however, did not rely on the evidence of the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Chhurri P. 3 which ‑ was got reco vered by Khalid Iqbal, accused, on 23rd August, 1977 from a sirkanda bush. One of its recovery witness, namely, Riaz was given up as having been won over. Moreover, Khalid Iqbal, accused, had not used the weapon in the commission of the crime. Even otherwise, the origin of the blood found on it could not be determined as having been dis integrated. This weapon, therefore, could not be connected with the crime and in our view trial Court rightly kept it out of consideration as a corroborative piece of evidence.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Khalid Javed had no motive against the deceased because he was not a party to the civil litigation. There is no force in the submission because Haleem, deceased, was the real brother of Azeem, informant, who was pursuing the litigation on behalf of others. Moreover, it is in the evidence that Khalid Javed, accused, initiated security proceedings against Haleem, deceased and 7 others. Further, we find that Khalid Javed, accused, admitted at the trial that there was civil and criminal litigation between his father and Azeem, informant. Similarly Khalid Iqbal also admitted the litigation between his father and Azeem, informant. In view of these admissions, it is no denying of the fact that the relations between the parties were strained.
10. The sole question for determination in this case would be whether reliance could be placed on the evidence of the eye‑witnesses. Trial Court came to the conclusion that P. W. 14 Muhammad Azeem, informant, and P. W. 16 Abdul Ghani were natural witnesses of the occurrence, In so far as P. W. 15 Abdul Majeed was concerned it observed that he reached the spot immediately after the occurrence when Haleem (deceased) in an injured state was helped by Azeem and Abdul Ghani for putting him in the tractor‑trolly for taking him to the hospital. Criticizing the finding, learned counsel for the appellants contended that in fact none saw the occurrence and the eye witnesses had stage‑managed their presence at the spot. He argued that Azeem, informant, who was a big landlord was not supposed to b ploughing his own land. He further contended that 5‑45 p. m. was no the time for the type of work, which was being done by the informant and his mukhtar Abdul Ghani. Generally the villagers plough their lands in the morning. In support of his submission that the eye‑witnesses were not there, he also argued that in the medico‑legal report Exh. P. C., the name of one Haji Mustafa was shown as the person who brought the injured to the hospital and had the eye‑witnesses gone to the hospital, then the name of the informant alone would have been entered therein. He further contended that Ghulam Nabi who was said to be preparing the furrows in the field with a kassi could use it in defence of the deceased and would not let the accused escape. Moreover, Azeem, informant, with whom the litigation was pending would have been the main target. We do not see any reason as to why a landlord who owns a tractor would not plough the land himself; and as to why they did not plough the land in the morning is a question, which could have been suggested to the witnesses to explain. In any case this is not a material submission at all. A landlord may plough his land anytime during the day. We, therefore, do not see any force in the argument. As to the medico‑legal report Exh. P. C., the name of one Haji Mustafa was written but scored off and the name of the informant is also written therein. P. W. 1 Dr. Muhammad Afzal who prepared the medico‑legal report under cross‑examination admitted that he scored off the name of Haji Mustafa and wrote the name of the informant. He however denied the suggestion whether he did it at the instance of the police. It is noteworthy that the doctor was not suggested that Azeem, infor mant, was not present when he made this entry. The scoring off the name of Haji Mustafa by no means suggests that it was done at a later stage at the instance of the prosecution and that Azeem, informant, did not bring the injured to the hospital. On the other hand, we find that the informant denied the suggestion whether Haji Mustafa accompanied the injured to the hospital, We also find, that Azeem, informant, in the F. I: R. mentioned that his brother was taken by him to the hospital where he died and thereafter he went to make a report to the police. Further, according to the doctor, Haleem died while he was being examined. This corroborates the informant statement who made a prompt report to the police. Had the defence version been true that one Haji Mustafa alone brought the injured to the hospital then, it would not have been difficult for the defence to produce this man, particularly when the defence did suggest to the doctor that Haji Mustafa was a bus driver. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that in fact this entry was made to spoil the prosecution case. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the defence could have produced Haji Mustafa, which was not done nor was the Investigating Officer asked whether he tried to trace Haji Mustafa and record his statement. We are, therefore, satisfied with the statement of the informant that he took the deceased to the hospital from the place of occurrence. The defence argument is that had Abdul Ghani been there with a kassi, instead of leaving it behind, he could have used it in defence of the deceased. True, Abdul Ghani did state that when he heard deceased's cries "Bachao Bachao", he left the kassi at the place where he was working and ran towards the deceased while the accused got away on the cycle. We do not find anything unnatural in this situation because after the attack, which could not have taken more than a few seconds, the accused fled away on the cycle and the eye‑witnesses were more concerned about the injured. We see no) reason to doubt their statements. They are natural witnesses of the occurrence as they were working in their field. Moreover, it was a day time occurrence. If any one other than the accused had committed the crime; they would have then named that person because substitution is a rare phenomenon.
11. It was next contended that the eye‑witnesses were interested against the accused because of previous litigation between the parties. The civil and criminal litigation has not 'been denied by the informant. At the same time, this fact can also not be ignored that Khalid Javed (accused) is a real nephew of the informant. In so far as, Abdul Ghani was concerned, no doubt, he is a mukhtar of the informant and under cross‑examination, be admitted that Haleem (deceased) had filed a civil suit against the father of Khalid Javed (accused) in which he had appeared as a witness but this alone would not make him inimical towards both the accused because he had no personal animosity with them. As such it would not be fair to brand this witness as inimical towards the accused. Simply because he is a mukhtar of the informant, he would not falsely rope in the accused on a capital charge against whom he has no personal grudge. P. W. 15 Abdul Majeed, the third eye‑witness of the occurrence, claimed to have seen the occurrence from a distance of 20/22 Karams. Since the actual attack could not have taken more than a few seconds, therefore, we are inclined to accept the view taken by the trial Court that this witness reached the place of occurrence soon after the attack.
12. Prosecution also relied on the wajtakar evidence. After the occurrence both accused were seen at about 7 p. m. by P. W. 12 Jamshed, a proprietor of a transport agency. This witness was present with his truck at the gate of the Bahawalpur Textile Mills, and knew both the accused. According to him, they got down from a tractor‑trolly and boarded a bus bound for Rahimyar Khan. The fact that this witness was a tenant of deceased's father would not brand him as an interested witness. This witness frankly admitted that about five years before the occurrence Khalid Javed (accused) had been using his telephone for personal calls and had not paid him the dues. This, however, would not make him an inimical witness. It is difficult to believe that he would falsely rope in the accused in a murder case for not paying the bill of some of the calls made by the accused. This suggestion put to the witness under cross‑examination, however, affirmed that Khalid Javed (accused) was not a stranger to him and was known to him enough that he even allowed him to use his telephone. P. W. I 1 Asghar was another witness who met the accused the same evening at 9 p. m. at Sadiq Abad bus stand and they travelled with him upto Multan the same night. This witness had some business with passport authority, therefore he went to Multan. According to him, the accused boarded another bus from Multan for Lahore. The witness admitted that Khalid Iqbal was not known to him previously, though, he knew Khalid Javed before from Lahore as he had often seen him at the Lahore Airport as the witness was then serving in the F. S. F. i.e. in the year 1974‑75. The fact that before the police the witness had stated that he knew both the accused earlier, would not discredit his testimony because he had no enmity against either accused. Learned defence counsel contended that after the occurrence, if the accused were to go to Lahore, they did not have to go to Sadiq Abad which was in the opposite direction, as such the two wajtakkar witnesses have been put up by the police to support its case that the two accused were in Khanpur on the day of occurrence. We see no force in this contention for the simple reason that these two witnesses have no axe to grind. They are not related to the deceased and have no enmity with the accused so as to rope them on a false murder charge. Only the accused would know better as to why they went to Sadiq Abad first. We find no reason to disbelieve the wajtakar evidence.
13. There is yet another confirmatory circumstance in this case on which the prosecution has relied against the accused i.e. the hiring of cycle Exh. P. 4 by the accused from Akhter Cycle Works, Khanpur. P. W. 8 Ahmad Din and his brother P. W. 9 Akhter are the proprietors of this concern. According to P. W. 8 Ahmad Din, the two accused came over to their shop on 12th August, 1977 for hiring a cycle. He handed over the cycle Exh. P. 4 to Khalid Iqbal, accused, and made the entry .in his register P. 5 at P. 5/1. The cycle was not returned by the accused. Three days thereafter, P. W. 9 Muhammad Akhter saw a relation of Khalid Iqbal, accused, passing in front of their shop on cycle Exh. P. 4. He took it from him and made an entry about its return in register P. 5 at P. 5/8 and calculated Rs. 14 as the due amount, which he entered in the register. On 23rd August, 1977, police came to their shop and took into possession cycle Exh. P. 4 and register P. 5 through memo. Exh. P. K attested by Muhammad Akhter and other witnesses. Learned defence counsel contended that the story of the hiring of the cycle and its recovery was police padding in this case. According to him, the entire evidence was cooked up. In support of this submission, he argued that register P. 5 was not properly bound and was not even regularly maintained and there were a number of overwritings. True, the register is in bad shape but it is common experience that such like small shopkeepers that give cycles on hire are not such establishments that maintain regular registers and accounts. In fact registers like P. 5 are a mere memorandum. In our opinion, what is material in the evidence of these two brothers is, whether they have any motive to put up a false story against the accused on a capital charge. P. W. 8 Ahmad Din said under cross‑examination that Khalid Iqbal accused, was ‑known to him as a resident of Khanpur, who often took cycle on hire from even before 12th August, 1977 (i.e., the day of occurrence). He admitted that as a matter of routine, they never took the signatures of the persons who hired cycles. We have earlier observed that registers like P. 5 are a mere memorandum and generally in small towns cycles are given on hire to those who are the residents of the same place and are not totally strangers to the town and its people. There is nothing to indicate as to why these brothers should depose against the accused. On going through their evidence, we are of the view that they have not tried to exaggerate or conceal anything. They stood the test of cross‑examination, which brought out nothing against them. We are, therefore, of the view that the trial Court rightly took their evidence into consideration as a confirmatory circumstance.
14. As against the aforementioned analysis of the evidence of the prosecution, the plea of alibi put up by the accused has no legs to stand. We find no reason to differ with the findings of the trial Court that it was a fabricated and a false plea. It may be mentioned at the outset that there is no past history of any mental ailment of Khalid Javed, which would have suddenly entitled him to admission in the Mental Hospital, on the 3rd day of the occurrence. In this case, the medicines prescribed by Dr. A. A. Aziz are mere sedative. Being a specialist in mental diseases and incharge of the Mental Hospital, Dr. A. A. Aziz has not described the so‑called ailment of Khalid Javed by the name of any particular serious mental disease. Depression, tension and aggression is a conduct more akin to the conduct of a guilty mind. We do not consider it necessary to go into the details of the past service, career of this doctor, which was disputed during cross‑examination of the witness. Learned defence counsel argued that the doctor had been exonerated of the charges. The fact, however, would still remain that his conduct had been open to question even earlier for falsifying official record. Though, according to Dr. A. A. Aziz, he had examined Khalid Javed on 12th August, 1977 in the morning and again in the evening, he had advised him to continue taking phino‑barbitone and tryptanol tablets, these medicines were for depression and epilectic fits. It is noteworthy that the doctor did not consider it a fit case for admission to the Mental Hospital and it was only at the request of the accused's father that he was prepared to admit Khalid Javed but he did not admit him on the following day i.e. 13th August, 1977 being a Friday. Normally, it is the doctor who advises patients for admissions to the hospital and conscientious doctor would not admit a patient to the hospital just because the patient so desires. The doctor did not mention anything about the details of the mental health of the accused, which required regular attendance in the hospital. It all appears to be a cooked up affair between the doctor and the father of the accused. We may also add here that Khalid Javed had been a student of the B. Sc. in the Engineering University. Normally, his father would not mar his future career by creating a record of his admission in the Mental Hospital until or unless it was a real medical necessity that be had to be admitted. We are not satisfied with the evidence of Dr. A. A. Aziz. As against the defence version, there is overwhelming evidence of the reliable prosecution witnesses against the accused. It may also be mentioned here that under section 8 of the Evidence Act, a false plea of alibi is an instance' of relevant conduct of the accused which is a confirmatory circumstance of the evidence against him. We may also refer to the statement of P. W. 2 Dr. Sher Muhammad, Medical Superintendent. D. H. Hospital, Rahimyar Khan who examined Khalid Javed on 28th August, 1977 and found him normal. Exh. PB/l is his report.
15. In the end, learned defence counsel argued that the location of the injuries being on the lower part of the body of the deceased i.e. on the legs. It showed that the victim was not standing because in order to cause injuries the assailant would have to bend down which is not the prosecution case. We have considered the submission. The evidence in this case is that the deceased was held by Khalid Iqbal from the front and the injuries were inflicted by Khalid Javed with the knife. Had Khalid Javed inflicted injuries on the upper part of the body of Haleem (deceased), be was likely to hurt his own companion. We, therefore, see no force, in the submission. The case is overwhelming against both accused, We are satisfied with their guilt. We dismiss their appeals maintain their conviction and sentences. Khalid Javed's death sentence is confirmed. Since Khalid lqbal did not use the weapon, we are, therefore, not inclined to enhance his sentence. The revision petition is dismissed.
M, A. K. Appeal dismissed,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer