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. 118 and Murder Reference No. 90 of 1982, decided on 20thApril, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑Eye‑witness‑‑Relationship with deceased‑‑Mere relationship of eye‑witness with victim is not by itself sufficient to discard his testimony.‑‑[Witness].
‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑Eye‑witness closely related to deceased but found to be natural witness‑‑F.I.R. lodged within half an hour of incident excluding any chance of consultation and deliberation‑‑Detail of occurrence and names of prosecution witnesses mentioned in F.I.R.‑‑No previous background of enmity between eye‑witnesses and accused present‑‑Fact of apprehension of accused from spot with weapon of offence, fortifying prosecution story and lending corroboration to ocular testimony‑‑Deceased not having any enmity with others who could have been interested in his murder‑‑Motive also established by unimpeachable evidence‑‑Case of prosecution thus fully established‑‑Conviction of accused maintained in circumstances.
‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑Sentence‑‑Accused murdering deceased who was in prime of youth over a patty matter and acting in a cruel manner by inflicting Khanjar blows on vital parts of deceased‑‑Death sentence, held, proper punishment in circumstances.‑‑[Sentence].
‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑Only allegation against accused being of holding deceased by his shoulders‑‑No motive attributed against accused‑‑Accused allegedly armed with stick but not using same‑‑Clothes of accused must not besmeared with blood, and nothing incriminating recovered from accused‑‑Held, said accused might be accompanying his co‑accused but not necessarily would have taken part in occurrence‑‑Participation of such accused in occurrence, therefore, found to be doubtful in circumstances‑‑Accused acquitted.
M.B. Zaman and Mian Abdul Latif for Appellants.
Shabbir Lali for A.‑G. Punjab for the State.
Date of hearing: 20th April, 1985.
‑‑Karamat son of Jaffar Ali (22) and Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Siddique (20) were tried for the murder of Liaqat Ali alias Baboo (25) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari. Vide judgment, dated 17‑4‑1982, the learned trial Court convicted them under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced Karamat to death and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to undergo three months' S.I. The amount of fine was to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. Muhammad Aslam was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. We have before us the connected murder reference and the appeal filed by Karamat and Muhammad Aslam as well as the revision filed by Muhammad Anwar for the enhancement of sentence of Muhammad Aslam from life imprisonment to death. All the matters shall be disposed of by this Order.
3. Karamat and Muhammad Aslam accused are first cousins. Karamat was a man of bad character. 3/4 days prior to the occurrence he had misbehaved while passing in front of the house of the deceased who gave him a beating. Hence the occurrence.
4. On 21‑6‑1980 at 3 p.m. the deceased accompanied by his father Muhammad Anwar P.W. 4, his uncle Ghulam Mustafa P.W.5 and Sultan P.W. 6 had come to Vehari city on a tractor in order to purchase oil‑cake (Khal). When they reached near the shop 'Albaraq' the P.Ws. alighted from the tractor while the deceased was still on the tractor. The appellants came there on a Tonga. Karamat was armed with a dagger while Muhammad Aslam appellant had a stick. Both got up the tractor. Muhammad Aslam caught hold of Liaqat Ali deceased from behind his shoulders while Karamat gave him Khanjar blows one on the neck and the other on the chest. The deceased came down from the tractor. The P.Ws. gave him support. Ghulam Mustafa P.W. apprehended Karamat appellant and snatched the dagger from him. Aslam appellant however, succeeded in running away. Liaqat Ali died on the spot. Leaving the dead body with Ghulam Mustafa etc. Muhammad Anwar P.W. 4 left for the police station. He lodged the F.I.R. Exh. P.D. at P.S. City Vehari on the same day at 3.30 p.m.
After recording the F.I.R. S.I. Nazir Ahmad P.W.9 proceeded to the spot. He‑arrested Karamat appellant and removed his blood‑stained shirt P.5 and Chaddar P.6 through memo. Exh.P.G. Ghulam Mustafa P.W.5 produced before him blood‑stained dagger P.4 which he had snatched from Karamat appellant. The S. I. took it into possession through memo. Exh.P.E. The S.I. also took into possession tractor because it had some blood stains. He prepared the injury statement Exh. P.J. and the inquest report Exh. P.K. of the deceased. He secured blood stained earth from the spot through memo. Exh.P.F. After completing the investigation, he challaned the appellants. Karamat appellant was also separately challaned under the Arms Ordinance.
5. Dr. M.A. Saleemi P.W. 1 conducted the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Liaqat Ali alias Baboo deceased (25) on 21‑6‑1980 at 5.30 p.m. and found the following injuries thereon:‑
(1) Incised wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 3 c.m. on the front of chest on left side at lower area 3 c.m. above the inner side of left clavical.
(2) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 8 c.m. on the right side of chest 3 c.m. above the right nipple.
(3) An abrasion 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the back of right hip at upper area.
(4) An abrasion 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the outer side of right hip at lower area.
(5) An abrasion 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the right knee.
Big blood vessels on the left side of neck were cut. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as well as injury to the vital organs on account of injury No. 1 which was grievous. The other injuries were simple. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were caused with sharp‑edged weapon while the rest ware caused with blunt weapon. Stomach was full. Small intestines contained chyme, large intestines were full of faecal matter and the bladder was empty. The time between injuries and death was immediate. Exh. P.A. is the post‑mortem report. Exh. P.A/1 is the diagram showing the location of injuries.
6. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations. Karamat appellant denied having been arrested at the spot as also recovery of dagger P.4 from his possession. He also denied the motive. The appellants attributed the case to enmity.
No evidence was called by them in defence.
7. The prosecution produced 9 witnesses in support of its case. Dr. M.A. Saleemi P.W.1 conducted the post‑mortem examination. Muhammad Anwar P.W.4, Ghulam Mustafa P.W.5 and Sultan P.W.6 furnished the ocular account. Muhammad Anwar P.W.4 and Ghulam Mustafa P.W.5 deposed about the motive. Ghulam Mustafa P.W.5 had produced blood‑stained Dang P.4 before the police through memo. Exh.P.E. Sultan P.W.6 attested the recovery memos. Exhs.P.E and P.F. through which the dagger and blood‑stained clothes of Karamat appellant were secured by the police. S.I. Nazir Ahmad P.W.9 carried out the investigation of the case.
8. Relying upon the motive, the ocular testimony and the recovery evidence the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.
9. It is contended that the eye‑witnesses are closely related to the deceased and there is no independent corroboration of their testimony and further that the prosecution story is highly improbable and the trial Court has failed to properly consider that the role attributed to Muhammad Aslam appellant was artificial and had he actually held the deceased by his shoulders there was every possibility of his himself receiving the injury at the hands of his co‑accused. Furthermore, that the motive also does not stand established through some independent evidence.
10. Muhammad Anwar P.W.4 is father of the deceased. Ghulam Mustafa P.W.5 is his uncle while Sultan P.W.6 is stated to be from their bratheri. A It is well‑settled that mere relationship of the eye‑witnesses with a victim is not by itself sufficient to discard their testimony They are the natural witnesses because they were accompanying the deceased when the occurrence in question took place. The place of occurrence was about 2 miles from their village and they had gone with the deceased for the purchase of oil‑cakes (Khal). Their presence at the spot stands established by the fact that they were able to apprehend Karamat appellant on the spot alongwith the weapon of offence. The occurrence was reported to the police within half an hour of the incident showing that there was no time for consultation and deliberations. The details of the occurrence as also the names of the P.Ws are mentioned in the F.I.R. There was no previous background of enmity between the eye‑witnesses and the appellants. The circumstance that Karamat appellant was apprehended from the spot alongwith dagger fortified the prosecution story and lends corroboration to the ocular testimony. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the deceased had enmity with others who could be interested in his murder. The motive also stands established through the unimpeachable evidence of 'Muhammad Anwar P.W.4 and Ghulam Mustafa P.W.5.
Keeping in view the above circumstances, the prosecution case stands fully established so far as Karamat appellant is concerned. He had murdered Liaqat Ali deceased who was in the prime of youth over a petty matter and had acted in a cruel manner by inflicting Khanjar blows on his vital parts. He was, therefore, rightly convicted and properly punished. Accordingly, we maintain his conviction and sentence and dismiss his appeal.
However, so far as Muhammad Aslam appellant is concerned, he is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased. He is merely alleged to have held the deceased by his shoulders. No motive is alleged against him. He might be accompanying Karamat appellant at the relevant time but it is not necessary that he must have also taken part in the occurrence. He was allegedly armed with a stick which he is not alleged to have used in the occurrence. His clothes must have been besmeared with blood had he held the deceased from his shoulders but nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession or person. His participation in the occurrence is, therefore, doubtful. Accordingly, we accept his appeal, set aside his conviction and sentence and acquit him by giving him benefit of doubt. He is on bail and is discharged from the bail bonds.
The death sentence awarded to Karamat appellant is confirmed.
For the reasons discussed above, the revision for enhancement of sentence of Muhammad Aslam appellant fails and is dismissed accordingly.
M.A.K.
Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer