Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1981, decided on 23rd January, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑Evaluation of evidence‑‑Three witnesses giving uniform version of incident‑‑Medical evidence supporting them‑‑Out of them two stating at trial, that faces of accused were muffled at time of occurrence and they had identified accused from their appearance‑‑F.I.R. lodged promptly‑‑Names of witnesses and assailants appearing therein‑‑Incident also fully described‑‑Statements of witnesses recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C. and muffling of faces by accused not stated therein Situation requiring deep consideration‑‑Dispensation of justice, held, would require sifting of truth by process of evaluation of evidence‑‑Subsequent statement obviously was somersault to exonerate accused‑‑Quality of their evidence would not improve even by holding their subsequent version to be introduced for causing doubts on prosecution case.

‑‑‑Ss. 164 & 265‑J‑‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 145‑‑Statements under S. 164, Cr.P.C. recorded in presence of accused without prior notice‑ Statements not put to witnesses in accordance with S. 145 of Evidence Act‑‑Statements proved through Magistrate recording them‑‑Trial Court, held, was at error in deriving corroboration from such statements‑‑Such statements, however, would not become scrapped documents and could be looked into as previous statements for limited purpose of their comparison with subsequent statement of witnesses.

P L D 1982 Kar. 975 and 1984 P Cr. L J 3138ref.

‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑Recovery of weapon of offence‑ Mashir not supporting recovery‑‑Blood‑stained hatchet recovered after 5/6 days of occurrence‑‑ Investigating Officer showing arrest of accused after 5 days of occurrence‑‑Complainant stating arrest of accused on next day‑‑Preserving of blood‑stained weapon for 5/6 days for production before police, held, was unbelievable and was not a credible piece of evidence in circumstances.

‑‑S. 302/34‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑Complainant, father of deceased‑‑Suspicion of illicit intimacy of deceased with wife of brother of accused‑‑Complainant having no reason for falsely implicating accused‑‑Even hostile witnesses giving same version of occurrence except, introduction of muffling of faces by accused‑‑Witnesses supporting prosecution in their previous statements‑‑Day time occurrence‑‑Witnesses and accused, residents of same village‑‑Incident reported immediately to police giving details of occurrence, names of assailants and witnesses‑‑Medical evidence corroborating statement of complainant‑‑Suspicion entertained by accused against deceased, held, could be construed as motive for murderous assault rather than providing animus for their false implication‑‑Evidence of witness might be scanned in circumstances of individual case and Court should assess its intrinsic value and draw conclusions which should convince prudent mind‑ Evidence of complainant, father of deceased, was unbiased of unimpeachable standard and therefore, could not be rejected in circumstances‑‑Conviction upheld.

P L D 1973 S C 321; 1982 P Cr. L J 458; P L D 1977 S C 557; 1973 S C M R 69; P L D 1978 Kar. 112; P L D 1958 S C 251; Niaz v. The State P L D 1960 S C 387 and Shahabdin v. The State P L D 1964 SC 1977; Lashkati and 4 others v. The State P L D 1981 Kar. 1 ref.

Azizullah K. Shaikh for Appellants.

Rashid Tariq Khan for the State.

Dates of hearing: 1st December, 1985 and 23rd January, 1986.

Both the appellants Ahmed son of Khair Muhammad Chacher and Ismail son of Qadir Bux Chacher, have preferred this appeal against their conviction for an offence punishable under section 302, read with section 34, P.P.C. and sentence, therefore, of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000 or rigorous imprisonment for six months in default, each, awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu at Kotri by his judgment, dated 8‑6‑1981.

The appellants are alleged to have murdered Sadiq son of Muhammad Yaqoob at Amri Forest in Taluka Kotri, District Dadu, on 16‑9‑1980, at about 4‑00 p. m. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is that a camel of P.W. Loung was stuck up in mud in Amri forest on the bank of River Indus on the day of incident. Loung took the deceased Sadiq his father Muhammad Yaqoob and other villagers, including Kasim and Haji, to release the camel from mud. After releasing the camel, they undertook journey back to their village across the forest. It was about 4‑00 p. m. It is alleged that both the appellants made sudden appearance in the forest, while being armed with hatchets, and attacked the deceased Sadiq who was going bit ahead of others. The appellant Ahmed allegedly caught hold of the deceased Sadiq and the appellant Ismail struck the deceased on‑his head with sharp side of a hatchet. Both the appellants then went away in the forest, carrying away their weapons. The victim Sadiq died within a short while. His father Yakoob rushed to Police Out Post Amri of P. S. Manjhand and lodged report at about 6‑30 p.m. The report was recorded by the Incharge Police Out Post Amri, namely, Abdullah Head Constable. He proceeded to the Wardat and inspected it in presence of Mashirs Guhram and Pandhi. He secured corpse of the deceased and prepared its inquest report and forwarded it to Medical Officer, Kotri, through Amir Bux P.C. for its post‑mortem examination. Further, investigation was taken over by Abdur Rehman A. S. I. P.‑He recorded statements‑of P. W. Haji Kasim and Loung at their village on the next day viz. on 17‑9‑1980. He arrested appellants on 21‑9‑1980. Both the appellants produced before him a hatchet, each. The hatchet produced by the appellant Ismail was stained with blood. The hatchets were packed and sealed and were forwarded to Chemical Examiner. After completion of the investigation, both the appellants were challaned to stand trial for having committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code.

The appellants were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotri, on the charge of the aforesaid offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code. Prosecution examined eye‑witnesses Muhammad Kasim P.W. 1. Loung P.W. 2, Haji P.W. 3, Muhammad Yaqoob complainant P.W. 8, Medical Officer Dr. Bashir Ahmed P.W. 4, Tapadar Wali Dino, P.W. 5, Mashir of Wardat Guhram P.W. 6, Corpse Carrier Amir Bux P. C. P. W. 7, Noor Muhammad P. W. 9, Mashir of arrest of the appellant, and recovery of hatchets, Abdur Rehman, A.S.I.P. P.W. 10, Abdullah H.C. K.W. 11 and Mr. Syed Ghulam Nabi Shah F.C.M. P.W. 12.

The appellants made total denial of their involvement in the murder of deceased Sadiq. They alleged false implication. They did not adduce any evidence in defence.

The learned trial Judge struck two points for determination; one relating to homicidal death of deceased Sadiq; and another regarding involvement of appellants in causing his death. He recorded his findings in affirmative on both the points and held the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. and convicted them thereof and awarded on them the sentence mentioned above.

The factum of homicidal death of deceased Sadiq has not been disputed. There is ocular evidence of witnesses Muhammad Kasim P.W. 1, Loung P.W. 2, Haji P.W. 3 and Muhammad Yaqoob (complainant) P.W. 8, that the deceased was done to death by a hatchet blow struck on his head. Next is the evidence of Medical Officer Dr. Bashir Ahmed, P. W. 4, who had conducted autopsy on the deceased at Taluka Hospital, Kotri, on 17‑9‑1980. His evidence reveals that the deceased had sustained an incised wound over occipital region, 12 c. m . x 2 c. m . x brain deep, resulting in his death. The post‑mortem report is Exh. O‑A in evidence. There is also evidence of Mashir Guhram P.W. 6, Corpse carrier Amir Bux P.W. 7 and Abdullah H.C. P.W. 11 that the deceased Sadiq was found lying murdered. There is no challenge to this part of the prosecution evidence.

The alleged involvement of the appellants in causing death of the deceased Sadiq mainly rests on the ocular evidence of Muhammad Kasim P.W. 1, Loung P.W. 2, Haji P.W. 3 and Muhammad Yaqoob P.W. 8. Muhammad Yaqoob is father of the deceased and other eye‑witnesses belong to the same caste and reside in the same village. The appellants also belong to the same caste and used to reside in the same village. All the four eye‑witnesses have stated that they, the deceased Sadiq and some other persons had gone to Amri forest at the call of P.W. Loung to release his camel stuck‑up in mud on the bank of river Indus and they were returning across the forest, after releasing the camel, when the incident took place. All of them, except Haji, have alleged that both the appellants made sudden appearance from the jungle, while carrying hatchets, and attacked the deceased Sadiq who was going ahead of others. They, except Haji, have further alleged that the appellant Ahmed caught hold of the deceased and the appellant Ismail gave sharp side hatchet blows to the deceased on his head and laid him to the ground dead. But Muhammad Kasim and Loung have made flittering statements regarding identity of the appellants. P.W. Muhammad Kasim has stated in cross‑examination that the faces of the appellants Ahmed and Ismail were muffled and they had identified them from their clothes, structure and physique as they belong to their village. P.W. Loung has stated in examination‑in‑chief that the faces of the appellants were muffled. He has added in his cross‑examination that they had identified the assailants from their clothes, physique and structure. The fourth eye‑witness, by name Haji, has given different version of the incident, in his examination‑in‑chief, he has stated that while they were returning to their village after releasing the camel from mud, some persons, who were going ahead, went back and told them that fight had taken place between Sadiq and accused Ahmed and Ismail and the accused had murdered Sadiq. He was declared hostile by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and was cross‑examined. In his cross-examination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, he has stated that it was correct that accused Ahmed and Ismail has gone there from the forest and Ahmed had caught hold of the deceased Sadiq and Ismail, had given him hatchet blows within his sight. In cross‑examination by the Defence counsel, he has given third version that Loung had informed them that Ahmed and Ismail had run away after giving a hatchet blow to Sadiq. He has further stated that Ahmed and Ismail had run away before he, Yakoob and Kasim reached the place of incident. To meet such situation created by the eye‑witnesses, the prosecution has put in evidence section 164, Cr. P.C. statements of the eye‑witnesses through the Magistrate Mr. Syed Ghulam Nabi Shah, P.W. 12, who had recorded them section 164 statements of Muhammad Kasim is Exh. 18‑A, that of P.W. Loung is Exh. 18‑B, and that of Haji is Exh. 18‑C. Only the deceased's father Muhammad Yaqoob (complainant) has not faltered in giving evidence. The learned trial Judge has placed implicit reliance on the evidence of the complainant Muhammad Yaqoob that the deceased was done to death by the appellants. He has sought aid from section 164, Cr.P.C. statements of P.W. Qasim and Loung treating them as substantive evidence and drawn corroboration to positive part of their evidence as regards the identity of the assailants and rejected negative part of their evidence as obliging statements, and held that it was proved that the deceased was done to death by the appellants.

Prosecution has also adduced corroborative evidence in the form of recoveries of hatchets from the appellants. In this respect, Mashir Noor Muhammad P.W. 9, and Abdul Rehman A.S.I.P. P.W. 10 have been examined. Abdul Rehman has stated that the appellants were produced before him by Pandhi Khan, a member of Local Union Council, on 21‑9‑1980, and they produced before him a hatchet, each, in presence of Noor Muhammad and Guhram Mashirs and the hatchet produced by Ismail had bloodstains. Noor Muhammad Mashir has given a different version that he had seen both the appellants in the custody of the police at an Otaq of Ismail and that two hatchets, one stained with blood, were found lying there. The Mashirnamas of arrest of the appellants and the recovery of the hatchets are Exhs. 14‑A, 14‑B and 14‑C . The Chemical Examiner's Report produced by Abdullah H . C . as Exh. 16, shows that one of the hatchets was found stained with human blood. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge has not relied upon the evidence of the recovery of weapons as he did not find it believable that the appellants had preserved the crime weapons till they were arrested after five days of the incident.

The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He has contended that the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants namely, on the evidence of complainant Muhammad Yakoob, who according to him, is not only a highly interested witness being father of the deceased, but his evidence also stands shaken by the evidence of other eye‑witnesses, particularly in respect of identity of the assailants. He has further contended that there is no evidence to afford corroboration to the interested evidence of the complainant Muhammad Yaqoob as to prove the guilt of the appellants. According to him, the learned trial Judge was at gross error in seeking corroboration to the complainant's evidence from section 164, Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws. Muhammad Kasim and Loung, which did not constitute evidence in the eye of law. He has urged that section 164, Cr.P.C., statements of the said witnesses, although recorded in presence of the appellants, did not attain the character of substantive evidence as they were recorded without proper notice to the appellants as enjoined by section 265‑J of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this respect, he has placed reliance on certain authorities cited as P L D 1982 Kar. 975 and P L D 1984 Pesh. 3138. He had next urged that the witnesses were not confronted with their respective 164, Cr.P.C., statements and they could not be discredited on the basis of those statements. He has pointed out that other corroborative evidence put forth in the form of recovery of hatchets from the appellants has not been believed by the learned trial Judge. Summoning up his submission, the learned defence counsel has emphasised that solitary evidence of complainant Muhammad Yakoob, without corroboration, is not sufficient to sustain conviction of the appellants and it is a case for acquittal, at least on the basis of benefit of doubt. He has quoted P L D 1973 S C 321 and P L D 1981 Kar. 1, as supporting authorities.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment. He has urged that the evidence of the complainant Muhammad Yakoob stands corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws Kasim. Loung and Haji in the form of their 164, Cr.P.C. statements which were recorded in the presence of the appellants in accordance with the provisions of section 265‑J, Cr.P.C. According to him, recording of 164, Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses without written notice to the appellants was merely an irregularity curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. and that the cases reported in P L D 1982 Kar. 975 and 1984 P Cr.L J 3138 are not applicable to the facts of the case. He has expressed the view that provisions of section 145 of the Evidence Act are not attracted in respect of 164, Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses pressed in aid of the complainant Muhammad Yaqoob in view of the evidence of the Magistrate who had recorded them. He has further urged that motive and medical evidence afford corroborative evidence. He has relied upon certain cases reported in 1982 P Cr. L J 458, PLD 1977 S C 557, 1973 S C M R 69, PLD 1978 Kar. 112 and P L D 1958 SC 251. He has contended that the learned trial Judge has adopted erroneous view in awarding lesser sentence.

The structure of prosecution case is laid on ocular evidence of Muhammad Yakoob complainant P. W. 8, Muhammad Kasim (P.W. 1), Loung P.W. 2 and Haji P.W. 3. The first three witnesses have given uniform version of the incident that they and the deceased Sadiq were returning together to their village, across the forest, after releasing from mud a camel belonging to Loung from amongst them, where the appellants emerged from the jungle armed with hatchets, and the appellant Ahmed caught hold of the deceased Sadiq, who was ahead of others, and the appellant Ismail struck the deceased on his head by means of a hatchet and the deceased fell down and died. The medical evidence referred to above does bear out that the deceased was belaboured to death by a hatchet blow dealt on his head. Of course, P.Ws. Muhammad Kasim and Loung have stated that the faces of the assailants were masked and they identified them to be the appellants from their clothes, structure and physique as they were their co‑villagers. This part of their evidence is sought by the learned counsel for the appellant to be placed in the forefront and he has urged that it casts shadow over the prosecution case as regards the identity of the assailants. No doubt, this situation needs deep consideration. Dispensation of justice requires sifting of truth by the process of evaluation of evidence produced before the judicial forum. Both the witnesses Muhammad Kasim and Loung have supported the prosecution case that the deceased was assaulted to death by the appellants, but have ultimately blasted the prosecution case by stating that the faces of the assailants were muffled and they were identified from their appearance, etc. Their evidence, therefore, needs to be tested by the process of evaluation. The incident took place on 16‑9‑1980, at about 4‑00 p. m. Its report was lodged at about 6‑30 p.m., on the same day, at Police Out Post Amri at five miles distance. Incident was fully described in it. Names of the witnesses and the assailants were disclosed therein. Statements of the witnesses before Police were recorded on the next day. Their 164, Cr.P.C. statements were recorded by Mr. Ghulam Nabi Shah, Civil Judge and A. C. M. Kotri on 17‑9‑1980. 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W. Muhammad Kasim is at Exh. 18‑A, that of Loung is at Exh. 18‑B. They did not state in their 164, Cr. P. C. statements that faces of the assailants Ahmed and Ismail were muffled. They put forth the version that faces of the above‑named assailants were masked only when their evidence was recorded on 12‑3‑1981, i.e. after nearly six months. It is obvious that they introduced that version in order to neutralise earlier part of their evidence that the deceased was assaulted by the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that 164, Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses were recorded without prior notice to the appellants as required under section 265‑J of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they do not constitute substantive evidence and they should not have been relied upon by the learned trial Judge as substantive evidence and considered as corroborative evidence. He has next urged that 164, Cr. P. C . statements were not put to the witnesses in accordance with section 145 of the Evidence Act corresponding to Article 140 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat and their production in evidence through Magistrate did not make them substantive evidence. The record does not bear out that the appellants had prior notice of the recording of 164, Cr. P. C. statements of the witnesses as required under section 265‑J, Cr.P.C. and they did not constitute substantive evidence in the light of the case reported in P L D 1982 Kar. 975 and 1984 P Cr. L J 3138. In case, the witnesses were sought to be discredited on the basis of their 164, Cr.P.C. statements, they had to be confronted with those statements as required under section 145 of the Evidence Act corresponding to Article 140 of Qanun‑e‑Shahadat. The learned trial Judge was at error in having derived corroboration from their such 164, Cr P. C. statements to the evidence of the complainant Muhammad Yakoob. However, 164, Cr. P. C statements did not become scrapped documents and they could be looked into as previous statements of the witnesses for the limited purpose of their comparison with the subsequent statements of the witnesses. It appears from the comparison of 164, Cr.P.C. statements of P.W. Kasim and Loung with their subsequent statements at the trial that they had C not stated in the former statements that the faces of the assailants were muffled and they had identified them from their appearance. It is obvious that their statements at the trial that the faces of the assailants were muffled and they were identified only on their appearance is a somersault as to exonerate the appellants. Of course, the quality of their evidence would not improve even by holding that they have subsequently introduced a version causing doubts on the prosecution case and it needs scanning. The evidence of the third eye‑witness Haji at the trial is contrary to what he has stated in his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. recorded earlier by the same Magistrate. Mr. Ghulam Nabi Shah, and produced in evidence as Exh. 18‑C. He stands discredited by having made contrary statements.

Prosecution has also adduced evidence of recovery of hatchets from the appellants but Noor Muhammad Mashir (P. W. 9) has not supported the prosecution case. He has stated that he was shown two hatchets, one stained with blood, by police at the Otaq of one Ismail. But Abdur Rehman A.S.I.P. has implicated the assailants that they had produced a hatchet each and that the hatchet produced by appellant. Ismail was found stained with blood. Chemical Examiner's report put in evidence through Abdullah H . C . as Exh. 16‑A shows that the hatchet referred for chemical examination was stained with human blood. Obviously, the evidence to the alleged recovery of hatchets stands divided. The learned trial Judge did not believe the evidence of recovery of hatchets on the ground that it was unbelievable that the appellants had preserved the crime weapons for 5/6 days and produced them before police after they were arrested. There was no question of preservation of hatchets for their production before police but they may not have been destroyed altogether and they could have been secured from the appellants. However, there is another circumstance in the evidence which casts doubt on the alleged recovery of hatchets from the appellants. The complainant Muhammad Yaqoob has stated in his cross‑examination that police had arrested the accused /appellants in the morning following the day of incident. The incident had taken place on 16‑9‑1980. According to the complainant's statement, the appellants were arrested on 17‑9‑1980. But Abdur Rehman A.S.I.P. has stated that the appellants were arrested on 21‑9‑1980. It appears that the appellants were apprehended on 17‑9‑1980 as stated by the complainant, whereas their arrest was shown by the police as on 21‑9‑1980. In that case, the recovery of the hatchets from the appellants' has become a doubtful matter and it is not a credible piece of evidence.

Keeping apart the evidence of P.Ws. Kasim, Loung and Haji there remains evidence of complainant Muhammad Yaqoob. He has testified that the deceased Muhammad Sadiq was attacked by the appellants and he was caught hold of by the appellant Ahmad and was given fatal hatchet blows on his head by the appellant Ismail, while they were going across the forest after releasing from mud a camel of P.W. Loung. No doubt, he is father of the deceased Sadiq but his evidence is not to be discredited on that account unless it were alleged that he entertained any animus for falsely implicating the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that it has been alleged that the appellants suspected the deceased that he was carrying illicit intimacy with the wife of a brother of appellant Ahmed and it is obvious that there was enmity between the parties. The suspicion entertained by the appellants could be construed as motive for murderous assault on the deceased rather than providing animus for their implication. The complainant Muhammad Yaqoob did not have any reason for implicating the appellant falsely. Of course, the learned counsel for the appellant has made reference to the evidence of the witnesses Muhammad Kasim and Loung in their cross‑‑examination that the complainant Muhammad Yaqoob was going behind them when the deceased was assaulted, and advanced the argument that he could not have identified the assailants. But it is evident from the facts, mentioned above that the witnesses Muhammad Kasim and Loung have made obliging statements on the appellant's side and whatever obliging they have stated does not detract any thing from evidence of the complainant Muhammad Yaqoob. It has already been discussed above that the third eye‑witness Haji, who has not supported the prosecution case, is an untruthful witness. The evidence of the complainant Muhammad Yaqoob, although being father of the deceased Sadiq, is not liable to be rejected or even doubted on that ground.

The learned counsel for the appellant has quoted a case Bagh Ali and others v. The State P L D 1973 S C 321 and another case Laskhari and others v. The State P L D 1981 Kar. 1, wherein principle of appreciation of evidence stands highlighted. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has referred to a case Raushan and others v. The State P L D 1977 S C 577 on the principle of appreciation of evidence. In the first case viz. Bagh Ali v. The State P L D 1973 SC 321, reference was made to an earlier case namely: Tooba v. The State P L D 1963 S C 40 as regards appraisement of evidence of eye‑witnesses, and it was held that appraisement of evidence of eye witnesses has to be based upon full consideration and evaluation of the circumstances appearing in the case where there is a total absence of physical circumstances to connect the accused persons with the crime, and there is background of enmity; and in such a situation, ocular evidence, in order to carry conviction on a capital charge, must come from an unimpeachable source, and if such a source be not available, such evidence must be supported by some strong circumstances which would enable the Court to overcome the inherent doubt by which such evidence necessarily suffers. In case viz. Raushan and 4 others v. The State P L D 1977 S C 557 relied upon by the learned counsel for the State, it was held that there is no universal rule that the evidence of an interested witness must invariably be corroborated by independent evidence. In that context, reference was made to two cases, Niaz v. The State P L D 1960 S C 387; and Shahabdin v. The State P L D 1964 S C 1977. In case Laskhari and 4 others v. The State P L D 1981 Kar. 1 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, it was observed by a Division Bench of this Court that rule in regard to corroboration of evidence of interested and inimical witnesses, although a rule of caution, has virtually ripened into a rule of law. In this case, the principle of appraisement of evidence enunciated in the case of Raushan and others v. The State P L D 1977 S C 557, mentioned above was discussed. There are numerous authorities of the superior Courts on the phenomena of appraisements, appreciation and evaluation of evidence produced before the Courts for determination of contentious questions agitated in a particular case. The salutary principle of appraisement, appreciation and evaluation of evidence in a criminal case highlighted by the superior Courts. I have been able to comprehend,, is that the evidence of the witnesses, particularly the eye‑witnesses, may be scanned in the circumstances of the individual case and the Court should assess its intrinsic value and draw conclusion which should convince a prudent mind. Applying that principle to the instant case, it would appear that the evidence of Muhammad Yaqoob, who is no doubt father of the deceased Sadiq, is unbiased and of unimpeachable standard. P.Ws. Qasim and Loung also have described the incident in the same manner. Of course, they have introduced a version that the faces of the assailants were masked and they were identified from their appearance and clothes to be the appellants; but that is a subsequent somersault to the prosecution case and the evidence of Muhammad Yaqoob is not liable to be doubted on that scope. It has been indicated above that the incident had taken place during broad‑day‑light when the complainant Muhammad Yaqoob and the P.Ws. Muhammad Qasim, Loung and Haji were accompanying the deceased; and even if it were believed that the faces of the assailants were masked, they could have been identified from their appearance as both the parties had been living in the same village. 'Of course, P.W. Haji has not supported the prosecution case that he had witnessed the incident but he had supported the prosecution version in his 164, Cr. P. C. statement and he stands discredited on that account. The incident was reported to the Police without loss of time and names of the assailants /appellants and the witnesses were disclosed. Medical evidence lends support to what the complainant Muhammad Yaqoob has testified. Accordingly, the evidence of Muhammad Yaqoob alone seems sufficient to hold that the assailants caused death of the deceased Sadiq in the manner described by him and his evidence does not necessarily require corroboration for inspiring confidence. It does not appear to be a case of doubtful nature as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants and cases relied upon in this behalf are not attracted for conceding to the appellants benefit of doubt. Accordingly, there is no merit in appeal.

Both the appellants have been convicted of the offence punishable under section 302/34, P.P.C. But there is clear evidence that the appellant Ismail is directly responsible for having intentionally caused death of the deceased Sadiq and he is thereby liable to have committed the offence punishable under section 302, P.P.C.; whereas the appellant Ahmed stands involved in commission of the same crime of having caught hold of the deceased in furtherance of common intention of both to murder the deceased. He is, therefore, guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. Appellant Ismail deserved capital sentence of death. Mere suspicion of illicit connections with the wife of his relation, and that too not pleaded, did not stand as an extenuating circumstance for not awarding the capital sentence. But there is no move for enhancement of sentence awarded on him.

For reasons recorded above the appeal is dismissed, while conviction of the appellant Ismail is altered from offence punishable under section 302, P.P.C., and the conviction of the appellant Ahmed for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. is upheld, and the sentence awarded on them is maintained.

S.A./A‑5/K Appeal 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.