Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeals Nos. 307 and 470 of 1984, heard on 1st July, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑Defence witness suffering injuries including one grievous injury in occurrence but eye‑witnesses failing to explain injuries not only in their examination‑in‑chief but also in cross‑examination‑‑Written report was sent to Police Station by Investigating Officer for registration of case qua said injuries to defence witness but no case was registered‑ Eye‑witnesses, by suppression of injuries, caused to defence witness, appearing to give evidence against accused with ulterior motive‑‑Injured defence witness stating that he had caused death of deceased in his defence of person, since he received grievous injury, right of self‑defence of person did extend to causing death of deceased‑‑No reason existing to disbelieve statement of defence witness‑‑Co‑accused found by Police to be innocent and their names placed in column 2 of Challan‑‑No weapon recovered from accused‑‑Reasonable possibility of defence version being true not ruled out and satisfactory basis not available to uphold conviction of accused‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑For disbelieving a witness, existence of numerous reasons, held, would not be necessary‑‑If there was one reason, which created doubt that witness was giving evidence with a motive other than that of telling truth, that would be sufficient for discarding statement of that witness or for requiring independent corroboration thereof.

Kh. Sultan Ahmad for Appellant.

Rafi Siddiqui for the State.

Date of hearing: 1st July, 1985.

These Criminal Appeals Nos. 307 and 470 of 1984 by Muhammad Ishaq and Abdul Rashid appellants, respectively and the connected Revision No. 630/84 by Lai Din complainant, for the enhancement of the sentence, arise from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Qasur whereby he on 6‑6‑1984 while acquitting Abdur Rehman and Jan Muhammad co‑accused convicted Muhammad Ishaq and Abdul Rashid appellants under section 302, P.P.C. for causing the death of Muhammad Hussain and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000 in default thereof three years' R.I. each. I propose to dispose of them through single judgment.

2. The occurrence took place on 29‑1‑1980 at about Fajar Namaz time in the area of village Thing Chak No. 7 of Police Station Pattoki. F.I.R. Exh. P.E. was lodged by Lai Din P.W. 7 on the same day and was recorded by Nasim Ahmed Bhatti S.1.lS.H.O. P.W. 10.

3. The motive as set up by the prosecution, was that Muhammad Hussain deceased had contested local council election against Jan Muhammad acquitted accused. It was also alleged that Rehmat a Depot‑holder had entrusted sugar to the members of the union council for distribution in their Ilaqas. He gave five bags of sugar to Muhammad Hussain deceased who distributed four bags amongst the residents of the village. One bag of sugar which was meant for Jan Muhammad acquitted accused and his companion could not be distributed. A day before the occurrence Muhammad Bashir chairman, Muhammad Hussain deceased and Lal Din complainant approached Jan Muhammad and asked him to collect the sugar quota. On this, the two appellants and the acquitted accused and others who were sitting there became annoyed. They quarrelled and grappled with Muhammad Hussain deceased. When the complainant and others were returning to their houses, Jan Muhammad appellant threatened them with dire consequences, hence this occurrence.

4. As far the main occurrence, it has been stated that at the eventful time when Lal Din complainant Muhammad Ishaq P.W. (not produced) and Muhammad Hussain deceased were coming out of the mosque of the village after saying prayer, the four appellants opened attack on the deceased. Jan Muhammad and Abdur Rehman acquitted accused caught hold of Muhammad Hussain whereas Muhammad Ishaq and Abdul Rashid appellants gave Chhuri blows to him. The alarm raised by the complainant attracted Muhammad Boota and Muhammad Ramzan to the spot who witnessed the occurrence. After receiving the injuries, Muhammad Hussain fell down on the ground and the accused persons ran away. Muhammad Hussain in injured condition was removed to the Civil Hospital, Pattoki. He expired before he could be examined by the doctor.

5. On 29‑1‑1980 at 2 p.m. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf P.W. 8 conducted post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Hussain. He found as many as six injuries caused by sharp‑edged weapons. On internal examination, the doctor found that the pleura was perforated and left chest cavity was full of blood.

In his opinion, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No. 3 which was as under:‑

"S wound 8 c.m. x 1 c.m. x chest cavity deep in front of ches left side 3 c.m. below the nipple. Wound has entered the chest cavity through fifth interspace and had entered the left ventericale of heart after perforating through the pericaridum."

This injury was sufficient to cause death in the, ordinary course of nature. In cross‑examination, the doctor stated that since no time of death of Muhammad Hussain was given in the inquest report, so he did not mention it in the relevant column of the post‑mortem report.

6. Abdul Rashid and Muhammad Ishaq appellants were arrested on 31‑1‑1980 and 8‑2‑1980 respectively. No recovery was effected from Muhammad Ishaq. Abdul Rashid appellant led to the recovery of blood‑stained Chhuri P. 5 from his house which was taken into possession vide Memo. P.D. This recovery was effected by Lal Khan A.S.I. P.W. 11. The Serologist report Exh. P.K. shows that the Chhuri was stained with human blood.

7. To prove its case, the prosecution produced 11 witnesses. Lal Din P.W. 7 and Muhammad Ramzan P.W. 9 have deposed about the motive for the murder of Muhammad Hussain. Lal Din P.W. 7 and Muhammad Ramzam P.W. 9 have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They stated that it was within their view that the two acquitted accused had taken the deceased in their Jappha and the appellants had inflicted Chhuri blows resulting in his death. Maqbool P.W. 6 and Lal Khan A.S.I. P.W. 11 stated that Abdul Rashid appellant had got recovered blood‑stained Chhuri P. 5 from his house. As already stated Dr. Muhammad Ashraf has proved the post‑mortem report. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.

8. When 'examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances. Muhammad Ishaq stated that he was not present on the spot. Abdul Rashid owned the responsibility of the infliction of injuries to the deceased resulting in his death. He pleaded right of self‑defence of person. In reply to question No. 16, "Have you anything else to say " he stated that:‑

"The fact is that one day prior to this occurrence I had insulted Muhammad Hussain deceased when he had come to my house in connection with the distribution of sugar. Muhammad Hussain ran away from my house due to fear, while running away, Muhammad Hussain deceased had threatened me that he would take revenge of this insult very soon. On 29‑1‑1980 at about sun rise time, I was passing through the Chowk near the mosque. Muhammad Hussain deceased and Haji Nizam Din stopped me in the Chowk near the Mosque, started abusing me. Muhammad Hussain started giving shoe beating to take the revenge of the insult of the previous day. Nawab son of Hakim Ali who is my relative intervened in order to safe me whereupon Muhammad Hussain and Haji Nizam Din grappled with Nawab aforesaid. Muhammad Hussain deceased picked up a brick and gave several injuries on different parts of the body of Nawab and one arm of Nawab was fractured. When I stepped ahead to rescue Nawab, Muhammad Hussain deceased tried to attack me with the brick on my head. I saved myself by stepping aside. I apprehended the danger of death to my life. In order to save may life and the life of Nawab aforesaid, I, in the exercise of right of self‑defence, of my person and the person of Nawab, snatched a knife from a boy standing nearby and caused injuries to Muhammad Hussain deceased. I threw away the knife there. The prosecution has planted Chhuri upon me to aggravate the offence. The remaining accused were not present at the spot and they have been falsely implicated. Jan Muhammad accused is my father. He is an old person and he has been implicated falsely in this case because he is my father. I am quite innocent. I have acted in the right of self‑defence of my person and the person of Nawab aforesaid. Nawab son of Hakim Ali was medically examined at the instance of the police. But later on the police did not get the case registered at the instance of Nawab in order to strengthen the prosecution case and to destroy our defence."

In defence two witnesses were examined. Nawab Din D.W. 1 supported the version of the occurrence given by Abdul Rashid appellant. Dr. Muhammad Rafi Medical Officer D.W. 2 stated that on 29‑1‑1980 i.e. the day of occurrence, at 12‑00 noon, Nawab Din D.W. was brought before him by Muhammad Shafi F.C. No. 321 for examination. He found 8 contused wounds on his person which were caused by blunt weapon and out of these eight injuries, the seven were simple in nature whereas injury No. 3 on the right forearm was grievous because the ulna bone was found fractured.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the three accused including Muhammad Ishaq appellant were falsely implicated by the eye‑witnesses, that the eye‑witnesses are not reliable; that although Nawab D.W. 1 had received injuries during the occurrence yet they have suppressed the same; and that there is a reasonable possibility of the defence version being true. Conversely the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant have not only supported the judgment of the trial Court but also requested for the enhancement of sentence of the appellants.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that from the statement of Nasim Ahmed Bhatti S.H.0. P.W. 10 and D.W. 2 Dr. Muhammad Rafi, it is very much proved that Nawab Din D.W. 1 was sent for medical examination on the day of occurrence by the police; that he had received ten injuries including one grievous injury and that on the statement of A Nawab Din, the S.H.O. had sent a written report for the registration of the case. Despite this report, no case was actually registered at the police station. Lal Din P.W. 7 and Muhammad Ramzan P.W. 9 the two eye‑witnesses have not only failed to explain the injuries of Nawab Din in their examination‑in‑chief but have also suppressed the same in cross‑examination. For disbelieving a witness, it is not necessary that there should be numerous reasons and if there is one reason which creates doubt that the witness is giving evidence with a motive other than that of telling the truth, that may be sufficient for discarding the statement of that witness or for requiring independent corroboration thereof. In the case in hand I am convinced that by suppressing the injuries of Nawab Din, the two eye‑witnesses have given evidence with ulterior motive. I do not see any reason to disbelieve Nawab Din D.W. 1. He stated that he alone had caused the death of the deceased. The case was investigated by the responsible officials /officers who found C the three co‑accused innocent and their names were placed in Column No. 2 of the Challan. No Chhuri was recovered from Muhammad Ishaq appellant. In the circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that there is at least a reasonable possibility of the defence version given by Abdul Rashid being true. Since Nawab Din had received grievous injury, therefore, the right of self‑defence of person did extend to the causing of the death of Muhammad Hussain deceased.

11. The upshot of the above discussion is that there are no satisfactory basis to uphold the conviction of the appellants. While D giving them, the benefit of doubt they are acquitted of the charge. They shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in some other case. Resultantly the connected revision fails.

M. Y. H. Appeals accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.