Muhammad Aslam (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)

-lc'f

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' StrNDE{.

CIRCUIT COUR,T HYDERA.BA}}

Before Mr. Justice Moha,rnrnad Karitn Khan Agtra

Cr. Jail A. No.S- 126 of 2013 -f NIuheLnrnracl,\slatr.

Versus.

'lhe Sta1,e

Appellant IVIuhammacl Through N{r. Inam Aii Malik. Advocate Aslam Respondent : The State Through Mr. Shahid Ahmed Sh.aikh,

A.P,G.

Date of l-rcarin.q 13.04.2017

Date of judgment 17 .O4 .2(\ l l

JUDGIVIDIVT

MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA J.. A ppellant li/Ir-thammad

I

Aslam was tried by learned Sessions Ju.dge,'sangha-r, in Sessioirs Ca'se No.274 of 2005, arising out of crirre No.4O ol 2OO5, r-egis1-ei:ed at Police Station Mangli, for offence under sectioits 3O2, 324 PPC. AppeJlant was found guilly- by Judgmenr dated 11.09.20 13 and was convrcted and sentenced (1) uncler section 302-b PPC to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1OO,0OO7-, which after recovery shall be paicl to the legai heirs of deceased Qadir Bux, in case o[ d-'efattlt, the a-ccr-ised shall further suffer S.i for six molrths more, (2) r-rnder Section 337-F(vi) PPC to pay daman amounting to Rs.50,000/- to Nfst. Ameer:za,di for: causing her injuries, failing rvhich to further lndergo S.l of six morrths rnore. Bencfit of Scctiorr 382-8 Cr.P.C. r.vas ai:;o cxterrdecl to thc'^.,1115s61. The Y appellant has challenged the judgment (the irrrpugned judgment) through the instant appeal.

2.The brief facts of the prosecutiorr case a-s clisclosecl in the F.l.R. are that on 01.10.2005 at 21OO hours.Mohalnmad Uris Nlaliah lodged F.I.R at Police Station Mangli, in which he has sta.ted tha.t his trrotirei' Qadir Bux aged 30/3i years is married person resides lvith llim by constructing house and'cuitivate the 1a,nd pf Fa,iz Muhammad lVlaLlah. Some days back, Nluhammad Aslam i:estrained his brother Qadir Pjux

-] cr (:

llot tO gO at the hOuse of Anrvar NIall.i1i Todr.-. 111 lllrlr-rlllrrl i'r'-r br ctthe l- QadrrBg;rventtovrllageF-arzNlohirrllnl:Lclti.',r.1rat-a.1ll'l,r.,t-I1r1l11he.r'as h:-' pl'escnt at h.is l-rrlr-rse ' ltt evetltttg' lr^ t'cl11 l'\11r2rl'l: llt^ lrc'tt -r' rt rr-i cousin .Art,,var N{a11a.h alld fr()lll llts Lr,-lttrtcl ltis i'(-rr'r"r1r 'itllt" ivl:-r Il:rlr -'r'lrclr ltr' 'r-'tclrccl ttr-a l' Mohammacl Hassan Mallah urere als(' coll-r111q.

ratrrc the house of An*'ar Mallalr, 1re sar," l4 t-r lr it n t r-r ir cl l'\sl;-r tt' Ivlirllt-rlr r

-'t..i- llra lrrr r 'i "l runl1lng frorn hrs house havtl'rg shrrl clttrt 311-'p1-re cl '-riif 1 Anrr,,ar NIa]]ah cal1ed Qadrr Bu:;, rltt -,r,1-r.tr-ll (}aclt; Eltr .tIlll. rrlllljl-t.tilr

the house of Anu'ar NIalla'h T11lle rt''t:' (-' (J( I rr ilt lr-','r-i '111'-'1' fvlr'llrilt tttrr2ri Aslambr-raisrrlgJlal<l.'alsasll"rlltt:1"''rllrnrr')nr1''ilr'lr"i'"1''t"" have comc aL thc house of Anr'r:ar NL-rltatll '-r:; lte ha-s r':'ll alrreLl '|rltrl' i11-1 i-i .tit you have llot spare bv s:rying so :rtt-tttplh t 1lrcc1 r'lptrrr 1'; 1' 111 1 shot gun lvith lntellliOn to comlTltt ,rtrtt {1ci- ancl als{) rr I'r.r-l ';11"f11','1 r- :lre u-t i': o{ fire b1, loadrng the shot gul1 uPol-r r-'|aclir Bu';i ' tlleat'rl'lttl.- ;' ;1';1 'rl'' ot r1:lrcle Anrvar Mallah l1an-Ic1-v NIst Ameerzirt'li t-atltt rlltilllrr''l lrour ller- holtsc. Nlohamlnacl Aslaln (-rtlrr-rl ilrrrrl lii - lr' 'l'rerrlttrc 1l'r'

shot gun upolt Qadir Bux, but Qacltr- l3ur: l-cll.do\I;i-r t'tr flr: qir-t11rrl 'r 1r'j ttr'1 r'ltrll" rrr-l

JS

fl the fire hit to Arncerzadl, shc also 1r'll 'lor-'rtr "r1 llrr' '-'t '-r I)lll s1='r11q ii q Mohamurad [lassatr a]so callc all(l :l;l\'' []tr: lrr'-rrlr=t'i ']rr tlr'll'r' "l-rer acclrsed N4ohamrnad Aslam escapccl 3'\i'irf irlilng 1i-1111 ;-lr.t r"i

ll I, j11lr1i-' 'r11 1r'ilt1 :rtrlc i}f i saw. his brother Qaclir Bus recelved orr(-' 11i'i .1 rl'Il i -]. chestarldallotherfirea-rn-tllILtl'Y'rrlell':161r'''rr-11'-lill'1'-11-'";1- i l'-'-' l r':loi' ilre ; oozlllg. N4sr. Anrcerzad.i re'cclvecl [ll-e ''rrrr '1]-| 1r-i 'tr r-1!'rl lllt)rlrl iI:t- r)()zrlr'r /-lrr t

knee and also recelved petlleL lnJurv 1,n lt--fl Icol,.

I

ourSeeingQadrrBu,-lsuccumbecirt,]11.]Lli-1el.T1rete.lll.,'iIr..l'."1]]e,l rll l:" 1: -"'ltr ' tlitr Anrval from hrs shop. u'ho ca;lte ar-Lltl r-lrsclcrsctl l-r'ttrr -1r i1 i'i,r;1. r1.;1..

getting Collve-\,.a1lce took ]lrs u,t[c l\4..1 ,1.'.-."..1-73.1t 1,, i. I'-l' lvir 1.1'rll Sa.ghar [or treat.rent. 'lhe1,- urfor-r lctl ol 1e le 1.1 t,rrrn r

L';rr-Tr('' l'1ro 'r'fter" through Head Jalrlrao P()llce Pcrst arrt:l 1'hen ilolrre 1" ' rr;t1 lJosl-rL::l' cotnPlcting ti-re .legal forn-ralrties 'ic'rri rle r''i l l'11161" ['1rl;'' r-' l-'i;ri1q1 :-ritf Sarrghar for postmortenl Thcr-cat1t'r- 116' lr.lit i'1 lodgecl rel)ort of rhe rnctder-rt.

ih:

Y 3. Afler cornptetrng the usua-l iLrvcsLigalroll' 1rgil'-'''r'tlrrirtl-Ler'i challarr against abovc na,lled accLlse (l

4.Fornraichargeagairlstlhcacc,.ts.:c[r:".i.:tt-ailli..l]..Il.ll-l]l.L]lr]-|2li t'r' ll'- i'' r-' Accusecl illcaclcci 11o! sLliltv alrcl ''laitne''l l Ii-.)

-l c-l

5.In order to prove. its case prosecution examinecl as m.any as I 1 witnesses and thereafter learned DDF'P ciosed the sic,le oI prosecr-r.tior-r vide statement Ex.21.

6.Statement of accused u,as recorcled uncler: sectiorr i)',12 C)r:.P.C. a.t 8x.22, in which he de.nied the. allegations o[ i-l-re prr:se<:ution. He however neither examinecl himself on oa.th rror led arrv erridence irr his f defence.

7.The learned trial court after hearing.t:he learned counsel for the parties and ou the assessment of the en.tir-e evir-lence ,:onvictecl and sentenced the appellant/accr-rsed ,is statecl above t-hrourgh the impugned judgmerrt.

8.The facts of this case as well as evidence producecl before the Trial Court find an eiaborate mention ir-r.the. irnptr,gned judgment passed by the trial Court therefore the sanre rna,t, rlot be reproducecl. here so as to avoid cluplication and unneces.jarlr repetitirro

9.Mr. Inam AIi Malik learned counsel [ol' the crppellant has contended that the impugned judgmr:nt shoulcl be sel aside ancl the appeal may be allowed for, amongst ol.hers, the tbLlorving rea.sot-ls: lttat the complainant rvas not an eye witness and his evidence is ptirel1, -r hearsay; that the rrrashirnamas had l;een .ma.de lrefore r-egistr:atiorr.' ol the FIR; that no recovery had been lna.cle ai Lhe tiine ot. a.r.'rest: [ltaf, there was only one eyelvitness who was unreliable: thaL tl-rere had beere a three months'delay in sending the articles to Cherriicai ancl Batlistic Examiners, which had been subm.it-ted, a,fter t-tie 1:ros,:cttt-ioir ha.d closed its side; that the confession sta-tenrent of th6 appellant -"".ro, recorded in Sinclhi, rvhich was the language of the a.ppellar.rt./ accll-se.l and as such'could not be relied upon; that gorle of the P.lVs. 'vere related to each other ancl as such coulcl not be reliecl upon; that the appellant was entitled .t,r the benelil, of doubt. Itl sr-rpport of his contentions, ire placed reliance on the cases of lYluhammad Asif, v. Y The State (2017 S C NI R 486), Nasir Javaid and another v. The State {2OL6 S C M R 1144), Rehman and others w. Ttre State (P I. D i963 Lahore 464), Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 S C M R L3'-15), Muhammad Nadeem v. The State (2013 P Cr. L.l 701), Sfoahid alias Waris and others v. The State and others (2016 1't' ti.Note 97) (Lahore (Multan Bench), Sher Azam Khan w. The State :rnd 2 others (2016 Y L R 1166) and Khurram Jalali w- The State (2017 P Cr' I- J Note 19 (Sindh)

'1C',v

10' on the other hancl. learned A.Ir.G. fi.rlly supportecl the inr..pugned judgment which according to him was comprehensive arnd had co'erecl all the relevant issues in the case l-le firrther cor-rlenrlerl that in support of the prosecution case thele 'ffas an evervitnessr that the appellant had made a confessiona.l statement; [hat the medical, chemical and ballistic evidence sirpported the prosecr,rtic,n case; r.hat there were no major contradictions in the evideir,ce oi the p.\A/s; that it r'vas not relevant that the chemicai and ffallistic rc1r,-',rts have L--een placed on the record after closure of the prosecution evidence. that it u'as irrelevant that some of the p.ws. rrray Jra.ve beetr i.elatecl ancl a.s such the impugned judgment shoulcl be'uphelcl ancl the appeal dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned A.p.Ci. has relied upon the cases of Naik Muhammad alias Naika and auother w. Tho State (2OO7 S C M R 1639) ancl Muhammad Ehsan v" The Statc (2006SCMR18s7).

11.I have considered the arguments of learned cotrnsel. perused the record and the case law cited by thern at the bar.

12.In this case PW 3 NIs Meerza.d_i is a.n eye rvitrres. She kner,v the accused and gave direct evidence that she .rr.r, fuirn shooting tlle deceased before shooting her. she is .ot a chance rvitness ancJ her A reliability and credibilitl, was not clarrlaged cluring cr.os.j e,[.,].rnination. she in my view is the key witness. I find her: evrcl.ence tr: l:re .conficlence inspiring and her evidence is a-lsci corroboratecl l:rv rhe raeclical evidence and PW 1 Dr.Hotool Ma-l irr connection w'ith ll.re causo of death of the deceased by fire arm ir1ury. I-rer own injur:ies are aLso corroborated by r-rumerous pW's especially pl,t/ l_3 Dr.Najrna Hyder-. Irr addition some corroboration can be founcl io the. r:vi<ren,:e of .p\Ii Muhammed Hassan who saw the accused rr-rnning otrrsirle the village with the gun , after the shots. Ttre co^rplai,a.,t's cvid,ence is corroborative but is hearsa-y. . Even it' \r.,e di.scourrl th-e other corroborative evidence of PW 6 Gullo rvhose evidence seem.s to be

Y

exaggerated. In this respect reference can be m.acle tr-r rhe case of Muhammail phsan v. The state (2006 s c IVI R lB5'/) 'vhere ir wa.s held at P.1860 at para 6 as under:

"6. It is true that there is onll,"ocnlat t'estimony,rl P.IA/.4 NIst. Khatun Bibi corroborated by tledica.l er,'icieirce, p.W. rr Dr. Muhammad Sarfra.z Sial. The fact l.hat therb is orr.lv ocnlar testimony of one P.w. r,vhich is r-rnimpeacha.ble ancr co,fider:rce- inspiring corroborated by medical evidence r,r.oulcj b,: sufficierrt to (f base convicrion. It be noted tha( tl-ris Coi:rt iras t.inre and again 'r/Z / L./ \ .::l

-lc \

held that the rule of corrobor-a-tron rs rule o[ ;ll]rrlrr,larl ca_r_rtron and not a mandator]' rule to be a.ppliccl irrvrrrr-rl'.hr rn ercl-r ('a_s,: rather thts rs settlcC prrlcrprle tlrir t if []rc (_r\ru t. r-' .,:1.r:,[r,.Cl- ;_r-l.,oU ( tl're trr-tthJtrltress of ,Jrrer:l r;.,rrrjr-r,-r-. r l,r , .-, l, rr -rrralr i, .ri col'robol-atrvc cvldcncc t,orrlrl rror lrn ,'f ir,r,r,-i- 1lrq1 rrfr,-,r1r, 1' rr, that, as 1t ma1; aS 1n the presctlt rt;-t 3f i-\"-..-',.-,ir). - .,, . irnirt ir;ltrr-lr 15 unimpeachable a.r-rcl conficlr.lrce -l,ir)rr11q.. r1r rr:r, tr.r- .ritrl r.l Corroborated l:f. mechcal evi r.ien r-,t'

13.With regard to intcrr:sted vrrrtne ss,:s h-tse,J orr ilrc,-r-1rl5.i1r.a 11r. r- f611 me i do 1-iol consider thrs to be of :rr.ch. rt .r-,ji-. ,:i--r,.Lrr ;,r'l rir riri-. respcct rel'ercnce rs ntacle to tfic s6sr-1r 1yI l{uhanrnr:rr, i,iirsrr.r [Sr rr_ir a) and Naik Muhammad'5 r:ase (SuPral an(l Ame,-.;--1ii ri Si-ate irI,r9,r MLD 758 (Lahor c) Tltis rs ,norc :L) '..rr,c" ir(,.l)i,rri:. ,, ,.,rrrti lr;r been shor.r,n to',rra161" 7 o*a.irrst the a1tlt. llarrr, I,ri- .rp.,. ,rI tlr T. i,.i/-

14.The accttsed u,a.s arrested on 1-ne' ,iirr ,.1-llla- ,11,-r,1, 11i rilr iilfr r,vas iodged oll that daf', 1,he post inortcn-,l,",,.r-. cEr-r rie,. I ,,,ri ,,ir Lltar dav alld the appgllant also leacl the 1rolr,.c t.r-, llrr- nurr, l(ti ,i,..r11 )Lrr t.lrr,_-l r belonged to htm and lvas found tt hr:. lrrrrire ,trr ,ir;rt .;r,i1.,iai, T'h,- balhstlcs repoft al-ra,t,'" thert a1 le rrst I li tlr- ,trnPt.r,.:i l.r-r.c lrre, l. ^l"r frorn thts ven. \\,eaporr antj thc chclurr, ,ri t t.Lror r r-j ,ri-i,. ..rrl.,r,r rr.,;e ,,1 ll.r prosecutlons case .

15.importantl-t;. a day after the irrcidcnt-. i.] re .-r.r r r.rF.,l ,-zri e a l_, l rr.l

.L

confesslonal statement be for-e the it'tirp.jslr.;r l_3 ,.,r.1r,-r chru 116 r,t;rje3l:^,1 t. the crlnre rvherebl, he gave itrs rnotlv,,. [7-rr (orrrrlrrtir.lr(: ]1,..,.111;1o l-r,.1rr,- that he had drscoverccl that thc rviie oi hi:, rlralqr-l.,r.l r,rrr, l,. 1,..'\i.v, 1 I,ir: Meerzadi; \ ras conll1t rtltt:r:- Ztta bil l?arza q,11f tlre r-[ec,-r,:..1 p\,.,/ I I shahicl Hussain "vho lvas a cnrrl Judge c,rr-clecl [1 15 .--r:rr1ilr1i1 i a,'1rr ,.e

producecl the sanre beforc thc Court- Lr-r acicirLrrlrrr tar hrs ,t.,r,:, .r.rr_lenrtc orr this issuc. Although the t,,Lr-rgr-ra-ge us.:rl rn tlre q. 1,"4 .ri;rtonrclri- 1. lror Srndhr $'htch is tite ruotlter tongue ol'lire ,r(t(--r,rs,:._i i ,-1,-, ,ro: r.,lnq de ,- thrs to be of mUch l-elevancc as the S Llr.l- s,talcineirt r11r.r rlrr.;111. sl-r.te.r thaL rt was read back to-irul rn Siircl ['r r arr,.-l ,]: .irr.l, ir^ rrlr 1',rllr; a:-'a,r,. o[ 1ts contents.

16.The fact that tl-re court allo'"ved th,: prose('r_riroir ii...,, 11 p\,-,/ I Dr Nalma Hvdcr:r1tcr closLnS rts srclc r.t-,rr:,iCIar l-rr hr-,.1 r,r '.;1--111f1r, r11-- as a proper al)l)llcilLloIl \\:1s il a-c1c Ioi r-cLrpcrrrlrg ilrr- ,-.r r,- ,,lrr,tlr ,r.a:. allor,vecl bf- Lhc leautecl tnarl ,iucige \\,hl,rlr ,-1r:aisror-r ',v.r:r, ,r{ri rl,l-,-,\l(-, ! l_\- tf ie appellant There rs al:o r-rc, lega,l lr.r.r 1o tlrc f rlrnr- ,li rlr , f 1,-,r rr,:.1 reports artd ballistrcs rcports altcr t1're L)rc)scculJCn l-ra.: ,..1,r-.,-,, ii a:.-.,. f

*t,o

17 . It is true that there are some discrepancies in the evidence of some PW's hou,ever I consider such cliscrepancies to be o1'only a trtinoi' nature and when cor-rsidered against the totality of the evidence to be of little, if any, significance in the context ot' l-his case. In tlris reslrect reference may.bb made to the cases of Zakir Khan & others v. 'The

State (1995 SCMR tZ93) ancl Ameer Ali V State {l'9q9 MLD 758 (Lahore)

18.I entirely agree rvith learned cottnsei .for the appellant that the accusecl shotrld be entitled to the benefit of tire doubt irr ,:rinritra.l cctses which is a rvell settied iegal principle l-rou,ever I arn gr.ridecl in t-l-"1s respecr by the case of Faheem Ahmerl Farooqui V State (2(108 SCI/lll 1572)'where it was held as under at P.1576 at Para D

',It needs no reiteration that lor tl-re pl'rlpose of giviieg benetlt of doubt to an accusecl person, more tl-ian one.itifiririlS is rirlt requirecl, a single infirmity creating reasonatrle uoo51 irr, the mind of a reasonable anct prudent minri regarding l:he truth of the charge makes the whole case dorrbtful. l/ete[i, because the br,rrden is on the accusecl to llro\/e his innoceur:e it does not absoh,e the prQsecurtirtn tr-orrr its cluh, l-o l)ro\re its case against the accused beyond anl' sharlorr' ,:rl iir,r-tbt."(b,:ltl added)

.t^ 19. In this case I am of the rziev,, tfiat urh.en the evidence is rea,:J in totality there woulcl be no doubt i1 a reasolaktle and tr,rrrclent peLfiolr.'s mind that the appellant u'as gui]t1'o1'"the offense lbr rvhich ire has reen charged not with standing the fern' minor procedurai irregular-ities anr-l minor contradictions in the evidence ol the PW's rvhicl-r even othet r,r'ise are not fatai to the prosecutions case.

20.In my view the evidence of the key PW's on ei whole is reliable, trustworthy'ancl confidence inspiriLrg (ba,rring Pw 6 cr-rlio 'r,hose evidence seems to be exaggerated) nor-ie of u,ho0r rvere serior-rsl1,' damaged, if at atl, during cross er(amination. Suclr eviden6s i11 snr; visr,rr aISo represents a Continuous chain of eviclence lrom the time ol the { Crime conr-rectilg the appellant t6 the crime especially when the medical, baltistic ar-rd chemical evidence is talcer-r into acccrunt-'

21.Thr-rs, for t[e above reasons r r-r;r irolcl i,]tr: tt.rtLrrii-.ttF(.i .1l-i cl-,: ' il ali , , and hereby dismiss this appeal.

- ---J .--^'-.'.

,5. ' Hyderabad I ( - Dated: 17.O4.2017

t \, 1