Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No.27-J of 1985, decided on 18th February, 1987.

---S.302--Accused admitting his presence as well as presence of complainant (brother of deceased) on spot at time of occurrence- Defence version that deceased was killed by complainant himself absolutely false and unbelievable--Occurrence was witnessed by complainant--Circumstantial evidence fully corroborating statement of complainant who had no enmity to falsely implicate accused Other prosecution witnesses also independent and natur6l, having no enmity with accused to falsely depose against him--Recovery of blood-stained shirt and recovery of knife from accused supporting statements of prosecution witnesses--Recoveries also fully corroborating ocular account--Conviction and sentence maintained in circumstances.

Appellant through Jail.

Muhammad Shah Nawaz for the State.

Date of hearing: 18th February, 1987.

Mat. Nasim Akhtar deceased on 28-11-1984 at about Jhikki Peshi Wela went to fields to cut fodder in Chak No. 55/T.D.A. District Bhakkar. She did not return home till Degar Wela. Her brother Ramzan complainant felt worried. He, accompanied by Ghulam Akbar, went towards his land to enquire about his sister. When they both were proceeding on a Katcha path near the land of Haji Haq Nawaz Baloch, they .saw Nasim Akhtar deceased returning home with a bundle of fodder on her head. They both,, therefore, stopped. In the meanwhile Abdul Hameed came there on bicyle. He stopped his bicycle near Mst. Nasim Akhtar and asked her to accompany him. Mst. Nasim Akhtar refused. Abdul Macneed took out knife from his pocket and gave repeated blows on the breast, flank and abdomen of Mst. Nasim Akhtar, who fell down. Thereafter, he inflicted more injuries on her eyes, arms and legs. The occurrence was witnessed by Ramzan complainant, Ghulam Akbar and Bakhtawar PWs. They tried to apprehend the accused who left the bicycle at the spot and managed to run away.

2. The motive was stated to be that Abdul Hameed accused wanted the hand of Mst. Nasim Akhtar which was refused by her parents. She was given in Nikah of Ghulam Shabbir to the annoyance of the accused. Mst. Nasim Akhtar was sent to Civil Hospital Bhakkar for treatment and examination. P. W.8 Ramzan complainant himself went to Police Station Bhakkar, about 15 miles from the place of occurrence and 'lodged F.I.R. Ex.P. C. on the same day at 7.30 p. m. which was recorded by S.I. Abdul Ghafoor P.W.12. Mst. Nasim Akhtar, when still alive; aged about 16 years was medically examined on 28-11-1984 at 9 p.m. by P.W.6 Lady Doctor Mubashra Anwar. The W.M.O. on medical examination noted 19 incised wounds of various descriptions on right eye, right side of forehead, right upper arm, right breast, left iliac crest, left and right thighs, knee joint, back of chest, left buttock, right and left chest, of Mst. Nasim Akhtar. Injuries 3, 4, 5, 6, 13 and 18 were kept under observation while remaining injuries were simple in nature. All the injuries had been caused by sharp-edged weapon and were of within six hours duration. The W. M.O. found the condition of patient dangerous and accordingly informed the police of that. Mst. Nasim Akhtar who was brought to hospital in comma died at 10.50 p.m. on 28-11-1984. After her death, the dead body of Mst. Nasim Akhtar was sent for post-mortem examination -which was conducted at 1 p.m. on 29-11-1984 by P.W.7 Dr. Anwar Ahmad who on external examination noted some injuries on her dead body. On dissection the medical officer found that the chest wall had perforated under injury No.18. Right side of pleurae, right lung and right side of pericardium had perforated. The death was due to shock and profuse bleeding in the chest cavity as a result of Injury No.18 which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. All injuries had been caused by sharp-edged weapon. The probable time between injuries and death was 8 hours and post-mortem was conducted after about 14 hours of death.

2-A. The Investigating Officer S.I. Abdul Ghafoor P.W:12 during inspection of the spot on 29-i1-1984 collected blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence vide memo. Ex.PJ. He also took in possession a bundle of grass P.12 from the place of occurrence which was being brought by Mst. Nasim Akhtar before the occurrence vide memo. Ex.PK. The cycle of Abdul. Hameed accused Ex.P.13 was also taken in possession from the place of occurrence vide memo. Ex.PL by S.I. Abdul Ghafoor P.W.13 in presence of Muhammad Ramzan P.W.8 and Muhammad Ramzan son of Haider not examined. P.W.10 Muhammad Shafique was owner of cycle P.13. It was stated by him during trial that the accused had taken this cycle on rent from him. The accused was arrested on 30-11-1984. At the time of arrest Abdul Hameed accused was found wearing blood-stained shirt P.13/A which was taken in possession vide memo. EX.PM. by S.I. Abdul Ghafoor P W.12 In presence of Muhammad Nawaz PW.9 and Ghulam Jafar PW. not examined. At the same time key P.14 was recovered from Abdul Hameed accused on his personal search. It was taken in possession vide memo. Ex.PN in presence of same witnesses. On 30-11-1984 register P.15 regarding renting of bicycles was produced by Muhammad Shafique PW.10 before S.I. Abdul Ghafoor who took the same in possession vide memo. Ex.PO. On 30-11-1984 the accused opened the lock P .11 of the room of his hotel. The said lock was taken in possession vide memo PE by, S.I. Abdul Ghafoor PW.12 in presence of Muhammad Ramzan PW.4 and Muhammad Nawaz PW.9. After opening the lock of room of the hotel with key P.14 Abdul Hameed accused took out blood-stained knife P.10 which had been hidden in waste papers in corner of the said room. It was taken in possession by S.I. Abdul Ghafoor PW.12 vide memo. Ex.PD in presence of Muhammad Ramzan PW.4 and Muhammad Nawaz PW.9. It was sealed in a parcel. The shirt of the accused P.13/A, clothes of the deceased and knife P.10 were found stained with human blood vide report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PS and that of Serologist Ex.PR. The accused was challaned after completion of investigation. The prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses in all. PW.4 Muhammad Ramzan complainant and PW.5 Bakhtawar were examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Akbar, another witness named in the F.I.R. was given up. The incriminating recoveries from the accused were witnessed by PW.4 Ramzan and PW.9 Muhammad Nawaz. Muhammad Shafique PW.10 stated that on 28-11-1984 at 3-25 p. m. Abdul Hameed accused got cycle P.13 on rent from him. An entry was made on 27-11-1984 in register Ex.15. Rana Muhammad Hanif PW 11 stated that he was running hotel in his own house and had rented a room to Abdul Hameed accused. The medical evidence was funished by Lady Doctor Mubashra Anwar PW.6 and Dr. Anwar Ahmad PW 7 as given in detail above. The case was investigated by S.I. Abdul Ghafoor PW.12. The evidence of rest of the witnesses was of formal nature. Abdul Hameed accused aged about 22 years after close of prosecution evidence denied the charge 'and pleaded innocence. He denied recovery of knife P.10 at his instance. He denied that the blood-stained shirt belonged to him. In answer to question as to why this case against him he stated that Mst. Nasim was bethrothed to him; that he used to visit her house off and on and that she also used to come to him. He stated that on the day of occurrence he was with her at the place of occurrence. They were surprised by her brother Muhammad Ramzan. Seeing him he ran away. Muhammad Ramzan killed Mst. Nasim at the spot and then falsely implicated him in this case. No evidence in defence was examined.

3. The learned Sessions Judge Bhakkar vide the impugned judgment dated 12-5-1986 placed reliance on the prosecution evidence and sentenced Abdul Hameed accused to imprisonment for life plus fine of Rs.10,000 or in default one year R.I. under section 302, PPC. It was ordered that the entire fire if recovered, will be paid as compensation .to heirs of the deceased. The accused was allowed benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Hence this appeal through jail.

4. I have carefully gone through the record of this case with the assistance of learned State counsel. A perusal of the statement of the accused would show firstly, that he admits his presence all, the spot ac the time of occurrence. He also admits the presence of Muhammad Ramzan complainant PW.4 at the time of occurrence. The defence version is that Mst. Nasim Akhtar was killed by Muhammad Ramzan PW.4 himself and that a false case was thereafter brought against the accused, I am not prepared to accept this defence version. A perusal of the post-mortem report would show that Mst. Nasim Akhtar deceased aged aout 16 years was virgin. She was virtuou unmarried girl. It, therefore, does not appeal to reason that sh would visit Abdul Hameed accused. The occurrence took place i Chak No.55/TDA whereas the accused was residing in Notak. I a clear in my mind that the defence version set up by the accused i absolutely false and not believable. The occurrence was witnessed b Muhammad Ramzan PW.4. He was brother of Mst. Nasim Akhtar. I was stated by him that his sister had gone to cut fodder from th fields. She got late and as such he went out to enquire about he and saw this occurrence. The presence of bundle of cut fodder the place of occurrence fully corroborates the statement of Muhamma Ramzan PW.4. The accused has also not denied the presence o Muhammad Ramzan PW at the time of occurrence, who had no enmit to falsely implicate him in this case. The accused has also admitted his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence. Bakhtawar PW.5 also had no enmity to falsely depose against Abdul Hameed accused. He is an independent witness. The land under his cultivation was near the place of occurrence. He was a natural witness and there i nothing to exclude his evidence from consideration. The recovery o blood-stained shirt P.14/A and recovery of knife P.10 from accused is supported by Muhammad Nawaz PW.9 who is also an independent witness. These recoveries fully corroborate the ocular- account o this case. It was stated by Muhammad Shafique PW.10 that Abdul Hameed accused had taken cycle P.13 on rent from him on 28-4-1984 at 3-25 p.m. This was a little before the present occurrence The cycle was found lying at the place of occurrence during inspection of spot by the investigating officer. The evidence of Muhammad Shafique, PW fully corroborates the prosecution case.

5. In view of the above discussion I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence of Abdul Hameed accused is maintained.

The appellant be informed about result of this appeal in prison.

M.Y.H./A-126/L 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.