SAEED-UR-REHMAN S/O GHULAM REHMAN (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

C on tt 'r C-\d- s-.. c.>4 \ *St ( €r\r'\ M^ .-= "*r\ C L l('l'ilrl CA'l'l'J)11 "IJdk d"l l (il&Gl{),UIdT O F S IN I)I {, t( A I{A C I I t

I\A

Cr Jail Appeal No. 385 of Z0Zz

Saeed-u r-Ra hman

Vs

+ The State

r tr(;il t_otJR l' ()t, INI)t_I

{,' t ! t r | ! t! D lltut _tl' 0 e Ltq' lt, :;.8.

Mr. Justice Muhammad l(arim l(han Agha

I)ale o{'hearing: 08- 1 0-2024

flccitlecl orr : l5-1{J-2024

.lr"rclgrncnt apprrlvc,cl Itrr I{cporting I'es

CIiITTIFICA'['I'i.

('cltillecl tltat the.ittdgment l'l0rcler is Lrased upoll ol'elluuciates a p;irrr-,il:le 6['lar.r, t'lclecicles a question of larv wltich is of'lirst impression/cli.stinguis[cs/. (]r,er-r'rrle.sr' / re versesiexplains a previ or"rs cleci sit-rn.

{' Strike orrt rvhicltever is rrot applicable.

N( ) I'E: - (i) This slip is only to be usecl u'hen soule action is to be talte rr.

(ii)I['the slip is usecl. the lleailer mus[ attach it to the top of'rlir- fir'sr page ol' the judgurerrt.

(iii)Iteaclcr tlust ask tlre Juclg,e rvriting the .ludgnrenI whethcr tlre .lLrdgntent is a1r;lroved fbt- r'eporting.

(ir') 1'lrosc clirectiorts ufiich arc not to be usecl shoulcl trc clelctecl.

I

6rt'r,,i,#

AT KARACI{T I

I}{ T}TE T{IGH COURT OF SIIYDH {

crr.Jairapp.uir'{;

s/o /"tror2072 Sared LIr Rehnran -/' Litrltrlarn Rehnran \1ale, Muslinr, Adtrlt, PresentlY Confinecl in Central Prison&CorrectiorralFacility,l(araclri'.'Appellant.

{ VBRSUS

. ResPondent The State....

.Se.rsiort Ctse No' 1031/2021 FIRNo.227/2021

U/S 302/34 PPC

ru c h i' I',S: .9/rnlr LutiJ' Tott'rr, I{a cRil\m*{AL APPEAI, TINDER qPfloN 410 c''P'C' with the ilrpugned Being aggricvcd by urili*tisfifi Learned Additional District judg,rent datect 1r.0s.2022 passecr by trre in Session Case No.

& Session JttrJgc, Cotrrl No, I Malir, I(araclri sentencecl to strffer as appellant was t031t2,071 where by the present rmder:- I atn sntisJied thcrt For u,hat ltave bcetr cliscus,recl above, .ft'rllt' pt'osectttto'''t'"'Altrovedtltechargectgatn'stctccusedsaeedur him offence T cont'ict .for Rehtrtttfi sort o.l' Gliulafit Reltrtrcttr."c,,rtl under" sectiort 302 PPC-]a,,:'

,nr,rtrry Qatte-e-Aud of Shaluad evidence or / ali ,\otl of-- ,lrif au. sriece there is txo outlar instead of Death case, tlrcrefore cortfessiort of accused irn this i"'pr::iso"ment for life The Serttertce accused [s sentenced 1or (tutenty Lac) accused sltttll also pa1,""pn" of'Rs.. t'tndergo sinryle ard irt default o1 poynient ie shall ,ftn'ther intprisottntento.f06ruonth,s.Accuseclisinfurntedthathental, and tius, certtfied coplt o'f pre.fer appeal agatnst his co,t,tctiort o'f cost' the.iudgirent is also provided to him '/iee A pltotocopl' ol' the intpu gnecl jurlgment ns Annexure "A" 11.05.2CI22 is enckt'uit hi'untitlt FAqTS appearing in FIR ate that on The facts of the prosecrttion case ale honse of complainant street No'

27.02.2A21 at night tilre inside tfte I(arachi, the present accusecl Dhani parto Goth, Razzaque Abad Marir, Rehman arong witrr otrrer co- na'rely saeed ur Rehman son of Ghula,r ,*-d#*rffi

present accused gave Ax (I(ulhari) blows accnsed in ftirtrrerance of trreir the to brother of complainant namery shahzad Ari son of Asad Ali aged abottt succumbed to death on the spot' 31 years who got injr.rries on his face he hence the instant FIR was registered' the case was tried against On the basis of the facts trrerrtionecl above trre prese,t apperlant a,d subseque'try the Leamed Additional District &

I

1l

t

I

I

I

I

I

t

*';ri-

i

i r'.,

It .-..{lEh t

\\e

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SII.\trDH AT KARACHI Present:

Mr. lustice Mohattmmd Kariru Rhan Agltt

CRL. AIL APPEA L F,tO.385 0F 7022

Appellant: Saeed-ur-Rehman s/o. Gl-rulam Rehman througll Mr, Habib-ur-Rehman Jiskarri, Advocate.

Responc{eut: The State through M/s.Muhamrnad Iclbal Awan, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh and Mumtaz AIi Shah, Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh.

Date of l-learing: 08.10.2024

IJate of Anuouucetttent: ls.10.2024

IUDGME NT

Mohanmrad l{atlrjt.I{han Agha, I: Appellant Saeed-ur-Rehman was tried in the Model Criminal Trial Court/Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Malir Karachi in Sessions Case lrlo. L03l of 2021 in respect of Crime No. 277 of 20Zl registerecl under Section 3A2,34 P.P.C. at P.S. Shah Latif Town, Karachi ancl after a iull- fledgerl trial vicle judgment clated 11 .05.2022 he was convictecl uncler section 302 P.P.C. anrl sentenced to suffer imprisonrnent for life. He was also clirectetl trr pray flns of Rs.20,00,000/- ancl in clefault of payment he shall further untlergo sirnple imprisonrnent of six months more. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extenr-1ec1 to the appellant.

2.The brief facts of the case, as per FIR lodged by complainant Shahzeb I(lran s/o. Asad Ali through his 5.154, Cr.P.C. statement recorded on22.02.2A21, are tlrat on 22.02.2A27 at night time inside the house of complainant's brotl'rer I appellant alongwith other co-accused in furtherance of their comrrron intention gave Axe (Kulhari) blows to brother of cornplainant namely Shahzad Ali agerl abr-lr,rt 31 .r'ears u,ho got injuries on his face and mouth ancl succtlnlbed to death on the spot, hence the instant FIR \ Ias registererl.

3.After completion of investigation I.O. sr"rbrnitter-l report under S.173 Cr.PC against the accustr! ancl two others howerrer the cllarge was otrlv frarnell agairrst tlre accused as thq: other accused hatl been ;rlaced in column No.2 of the clrarge* fi

\ \t

sheet on the basis that there wa$ hardly any evidence against them except their rlaffles appearing in the FIR. The accused plead not guilty to tl'te charge and clairned trial.

4.The prosecution in order to prove its case examinecl 6 witnesses and exhibiteci rrarious clocuments and other items. The statement of accused was recorclecl uncler Section 342 Cr.P.C in which he admitted many of the allegations macle against him but denied tl're murder of the deceased. After appreciatirrg the evirience on recor:r-l the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced hinr as stated earlier in this judgment hence, the appellant has filed this appeal against his conrriction.

5.'I'he facts of the case as well as evidence producecl before the trial court fincl an elaborate mention in the impugned judgment passecl by the trial court antl, therefore, the same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and urrnecessarv repetition.

6.Leamecl counsel for the appellant has contendec{ that the appellar-rt is irrnocent arrrl has beerr falsely implicated in this case; that there \ /as 11o e)'e witness to the rnurcler; that the last seen evidence is not sufficient to couvict the appellant rn,ithout corroboration from an unimpeachable source of which ther:e is none; that the appellant did not confess to the murder beiore a jr-rclicial magistrate ancl no recovery was made from him and thus for any or all of the above reasons the appellant should be acquitted of the charge by being extencled the benefit of the doubt. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the cases of Hashim Qasim V. The State (2077 SCMR 986), Rahat AIi V The State 2A70 SCMR 584) and Muhammad Asif V The State 2017 SCMR 486).

7 . On the other hand learned Additional Prosecutor General Sinclh appearing on bel'ralf of the State has fully supported the impugned juclgment. In particular he has placed reliance on the last seen evidence whicl-r was I corroboratecl by the medical evidence and recoverv of the murcler weapon (hatchet) and has preyed for the dismissal of the appeal. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the cases of Mst. Gul Nissa V Muhammad Yousr.rf (PLD 2006 SC 556), Akhtar: V The State (2020 SCMR 2020) ancl Fayyaz Ahmad V The State (2017 SCh4R ?:AZq,

8.I have heard the argurnents of tl're learnecl counsel for the parties, gone througl-r thc r:ntire el,irlence which has been read out Lrv learnecl counsel l:or the,"

L-

I

1a -f

appellant, ancl the impugnecl judgment with their able assistance ancl have consicler.ed the relevant law including the case law cited at the bar.

g. At the outset based on rrty reassessment of the prosecution oral evidence, medical evidence including post mortem report, blood recovered at the critne scene along with hatchet and blood stained relli I find that the prosecution has provecl beyonci a reasonable doubt that on the night af 27 /22-02-7021 Shahzad Ali (the rleceased) was murdered by hatchet blows inside the Godown cuffI lrouse of Shah zad,e Ali situate at street No.L Dhani Parto Goth Razzakabad Malir Karachi,

10.The orrly question left before me therefore is whether it was the appellant n,ltr murderecl the deceasecl at the sair-1 time, date autl location?

11.After my reassessrnent of the evidence I find tl-rat tl're prosecution has proverl beyond a reasonable doubt the charge against the appellant for which he was convictecl keeping in view that each criminal case is based on its o\ /11 particular facts, circunrstances and evidence for the following reasons and uphold his conviction;

(a)Although the FIR was registered with promptitude and the appellant was narred in the FIR as the person who murclered the deceased this allegation has been made against the appellant on the basis of hearsay evidence as there was no eye witness to the murder and as such tlre case is based on circumstantial evidence which the court tnust viernr wit]r great care anrl caution. In this respect reliance is placed on the case of Azeem I(han V Mujahid I(han (2016 SCMR 274) wllich held as under;

"In cases of circumstantial eaidence, the Courts are to take extraordinary cfrre and caution before relying on the sanle. C.irunnstnntinl erridence, eren ,f supported by defectiue or ilndequnte e.ridence, cnnnot he mnde bnsis for corutiction on fi cnpitnl cltnrge, lv[ore pnrtiuilnrly, u,lrcn tlrcre nre indicntions of desigtt itt tlrc preparntion of n cnse or introducing nny piece of .fnhricnted euidence, the Cow't should ahuqls be nindful to tnke t'xtrnordinnnl precttLttions, sa tlmt tlrc passibilittl ,f it heing rleliherntely nisled into fnlse inference nnd pntently rtrotl.g t"onchtsiott is to be ruled out, tlrcrefore hnrd nnd fnst rules slrculd be qtplied for corefiilly nnd nnrroruly exnmining circtnnstnntinl ruir{ence in such cfises becnuse clmnces of fnbricnting ntclt euidencc ilr( nhunys tlrcre. To jttstify the infcrencc of gilt of att arutsed persoh the circuntstantial eaidence nrust be of a quality to be incompatible witlt the innocence ,f thc ncurccd. lf such circtnnstnntial epidence is not of that stsnrlat'd aild quality, it wouli bt higltly dangerous to rely ttll(ut the sante by awsrding ctt1tital punishnrent. The better utd sn.fe course u,ould be not to rely upon it itt securing tlrc urds o,f justicc.",

\\g

(i)l.ikewise in the case of Fayyaz Ahmed v state (2017 SCMR 2026) the great cale ancl caution in u,hich circut-nstar-rtial evidence rreedecl to be scrutinizecl rn as ernphasized especially when dealing with a capital case in the following terrns;

*. "Ta belieae ar rely on circumstantial eaidence, the well settled and deepty entrenched principle is, that it rs imperatiae .for the Prosecutiotr to proaide all linlcs ilr chain an rmbroken onq zulrcre ofle end of the sfrme touches tlrc. desd bodU and the other the neclr of the acurced. The ltresenf ctse is o.f irch n nnhn'e ulrcre ffinny links nre nissing in tlrc chnin, To t:nrn1 cottttictiott on n cnpitnl chnrge it is essenttnl tlmt cotrrts lmt,e to rteeply sct'Lttinize the cirumstnntinl e.tidence hecnttstt fis we hm'e notir:ed fnbricnting of iuclt euidence is not ttncon'n'tlon in some intut thus, rte\l nrirutte nnd nnrrow ex(truinntion of tlrc sfinrc is necessnr1 to secure the ends of iustice nnd tlmt the Prosecution lms to estnblish tlrc cnse beyond nll rensannble douhts, restittg on cira.trustnntinl euidence. "Reflsofinble Dottbt" does rl lt tn({ut {tny dotfut but it must be nccortrpnnied by ntclt refisotts, st('J'icien{ to ptrtunde n jttdicinl nind for placing relinnce on it. ry it is short of such standard, it is better to discard the sarue so that an innocent person might not be sent to gallows. To ,l rlraut an inference of guilt from such eaidence, the Court has to crpplA its judiciat ruind with deep thought and tttith extrn cfirc and caution nnd wheneuer there are one or sofile fudictttiotts, shoruittg the design ol the Prosecutiot't of manufacturing and prepfrrfrtion of a cfrsq the Cottts haae. to show reluctance to belieae it unless it is judicially satisfied about the gtilt of accused persott and the required chain is ruqde out without nrissing link, otherwise at randonr reliance on such eaidence would result in failure of iustice", ]t tlltty nlso be kept itr rtrind tlmt sometimes the im,estiSntmg (lgency collects circurustnntinl euidence seeffis npparenthl helieztnble lmtteuer, ,f the strict standards of scrtttiny frre ttpptied there would appefrr tnnny craclcs and doubts in the sctl,ne which are always inherent therein and in that cfise Courts haae to discard and disbelieae the sanxe." (bold nddec[)

(b)Turning to the circurnstantial evidence in terms of last seen evidence. The test for last seen evidence has been set out in the following cases in the following terms;

(i)In Fayyaz's (ase (Supra) at P.2030 at Para 7 tt was heli-1 as uuder regarding last seen evidence;

t "The last seen evidence is one of such categories of evidence. [n this category of cases some ftrndamental principles must be followed and the Prosecution is under- legal obligation to fulfill the same, some of which may be cited below:-

(i)There rnust be cogent reasons that the deceased in normal and ordinarv course was supposet{ to accolrlpany the accusecl and those reasons mttst Lre palpalrle and priura facie furrishetl tr1' thtr I'rosectttiorr,

I

tI.tl /'\ "t

\y-

(ii)The proximity of the crime scene plays a vital role because if within a short distance the deceasecl is done to death then, ordirrarily the inference wotrld be that he did not part ways or separated from the accused and onus in this regartl woultl shift to the + accuserl to furnish those circutnstances under which, the deceased left hirn and parted ways in the coulse of transit.

(iii)The timing of that the deceased was last seen with the accttsed and subsequently his mtrrder, must be reasonably close to each other to exclude any possibility of the deceased getting away from the accused or the accused getting away from hinr. (i") There tnust be some reasons ancl objects ol1 accourrt of which the cleceasecl accolxPanied the accused fclr accomplishrnent of the salne tou,artls a particular' clestinatiou, otherwise giving comPany Lry the eleceased to the accused woulcl trecome a question mark.

(") Additionally there must Lre sotne motive on the part of the accusecl to kill tl're cleceased otherwise the / Prosecution has to furnish evidence that it was cluring the transit that something happened abnormal ol: unpleasant whiclt motivatecl the accused in killing the deceased.

("i) l'he quick reporting of the matter without any undue delay is essential, otherwise the Prosecution storlr would becotne doubtful for the reason that the storrr of last seen was tailored or desigrred falsely, irrvolving accuserl person.

Beside the above, circumstantial evidence of Iast seen must be corroborated by independent evidence, coming from trnimpeachable source becatrse uncorroborated last seen evidence is a weak type of evidence in cases involving capital punishment.

(vii)The recovery of the crime weapon from the accused ancl the opinion of the expert must be carriecl out in a trausparent and fair tnallner to exclude all possible cloubts, which may arise if it is not ttone in a Proper ancl fair rnanner.

-fhe I (viii) Court l-ras also to seriousll' corrsider that w'hether' the rlecease-cl was having any contrilrutory role in the cause of his rleath inviting the trouble, if it was nc-rt a pre-plar ured ancl calculated murder."(Bolcl adtletl)

(ii)In fhe later case of Muhammed Abid V State (PLD 2018 SC 813) which clelverl frrrther into the r-loctrine of "last seell together" er,irlc'nce it was held as uncler at Ir.817 Para 6:

"'l'lrtl fountlation of the "la.st seen together" tlteot'), is baser.l ()r'l principrles of prolralrilitl, anrl catrse and connection anrl r(.rluit'es f . glrgr-l1t reasons tlrat the deceased in uortnal anrl flrE

\P

ortlinary course was supposed to accotrlpany the accused. 2. proxirnity s,i the crirne scene. 3. srnall time gap between the sigtrting ancl crime. 4, no possibility of thirr-1 Per solr interference 5, motive 6. tirne of death of victim. fhe t circumstance of last seen together does not by itself rlecessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who cornrnitted the crime. There must be something rnore establishing connectivity between the accttsed and the crime" (bokl adclecl).

(.) Returning to the case in hand

(i)fhe 5.154 Cr.PC st'atement which leacl to the lodging of the FIR was macle with prornptitucle, A.y slight delay is explainecl Lr), the cornplainant being informecl about the inciclent who therr rushed to the hospital where he found his brothel dearl on account of hatclret cr-rts to his face and mouth and then recorclecl his 5.154 Cr.PC statenrent at the hospital. Thus any slight delay in lodging the lrllt has been fully explained. In this respect reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Nadeem alias f)eerni v. The State (2011 SCMI{ / (ii) Artnitteclly, the complainant's evidence PW 1 Shahbaz I(han i.s baserl on healsay as regards the murder but he rloes specific;rllt, nanle the appellant as murclerir"rg the cleceasecl by hatcl'ret artrl tlirl frersotlally see tl-re hatchet injuries orr lhe face and shoulclers clf tht: cleceasecl at the hospital. He rnade no rnaterial in-rprovements irr his evidence from his 5.154 Cr.PC statement. The cornplainant is also the related to the accused and as such woulcl have no reasou tcr implicate hirn in a false case as there was no ill will oI enuritv Lretween them ancl woulcl have every reason to try and save hirn frour any culpability. He confirms the presence of PW 3 Chularn Rehrnan who is the father of the accused at the hospital.

(iii)PW 3 Ghtrlam Rehman is an important witness. He is the father of the accused. According to his evidence his son/ accuserl was annoyecl with his sister's marriage to the deceasecl ancl lracl sent Jris u,ife aucl chilclren away to l'ris village as he thought his son har'l alreacly tnarle up his mind to murder the cleceased. Two days p-rrior to the incident l-ris son/accused told him that he will go for trn,cr clays and resicle at the Godown of the deceased. After one day tl-re accused and the deceased retumed to his house and told hirn that they were going to spend the night at the Godown. On 21-A2-202"1, he received a call frorn the deceased father stating that both the accttsecl and the deceased were at the Godown. After that ht:

I

received a call from the deceased stating that the accused is tryl1* to fight and quarrel with him. At about 2300 hours he received a call from the accused that he is with the deceasecl ancl he ar-lvised hirn to go to sleep. At 9am the next morning he received a call from his youngest son that tl're accuserl had come home ancl had gone to the first floor rn,ith the rleceasell mot-rile arrcl that his shalwar is lvas L'rlorrtl staitrerl. l-lc went t'o the accuserJ/son anrl found that thtr r,1t'cr:aseti tlohile \^'as lt,ing on the accnserl/son's kot antl th.rL Lrit,od \,\Ifi,$ otr tlre accusr-:tl u,hilc slralurar. I-{e secrrred troth motrilr. Phones auc-l asked vvhere the rlereascrl rrvas. The accusecl/his son attackerl hirr-r aurl he rr:taliatetl -nvhir:lr lear-1 to the accusetl/son lticking

4.-F,-+Gcitrt;

\si

hi*rself i* the washroom which he tr:iec1 to escaPe from Lrut iell froil the roof cluring his attemptect escape. He went clorn'. stails antl fou,d that his Jon/accuse.i *,u, bleecling frorn his head a.t1 evidelce'His hacl a fracturecl leg as Provel by subsequelt medjcal sorr/accused udnitted killing .Shezade/deceased so the wituess

-L

tolil his other son pw 4 usman to go and see if the cleceaserl \^/as

still alive. pw 4 usman informecl lrim that the deceased hacl been killed by hatchet blows.

(i") 'fhe tirne line is irnportant as frorn the evidence of PW 3 Ghularn accusecl at I{ehn.an who was the father of the cleceased ancl the ar-rtl the 11pr-, on the fateful day the accusecl was with the cleceasecl accusecl was apparentiy acting strangely' By 9am at the latest the rieceasecl was tlead whicl'r leaves a nraximum gaP of 9 hours frotn compan)/ o1' the rleceasecl being last heard from whilst he was irr the reasou to L-re the accusecl. The accusecl aud tfue deceased hacl every iug with each other as they were related to each otl-rer anri were staf at their Gociowr-r. The accuserJ also hacl a nrotive to kill the tlece<lsetl as he disapproved of the wedcling with l-ris sister as per the FII{ a.cl pw 3 Ghularn Rehman ancl pw 4 usman who was also his brother. harl lnportantly rreither the father nor trre brother of the deceased ally reason to inrplicate the accused who was their real sorr/brother / i, this false case who both gave trreir evidence in a straightforwarcl rllanl1er a.cl were not dentJcl during cross exarninatio.r and whose evirience I filrl to be trustwortl-ry reliable ancl conficlence inspiring ancl whose evidence I believe and rely orr'

sonre of the replies of the Appellant in his s.342 C,.PC statetneut also corroborui* the evidur-r.* of pw 3 Ghtrla,r Rehman aurl Irw + Usmau aS aIe set out below for ease of referellce;

'Q.6. That on 21.0 2.202'1. you called your father and asked him to sleep along with Shahzad Ali who was alone at Godown, what You have to saY?

Ans: Yes I have spend one duy and one night with deceased.

Q.7. That before this you even dropped your children easily including wife at their maternal house, so you could reside with Shahzad at his godown, what you have to say? Ans: Yes.

Q.8. That on 21.02 .2021you also called your fatherand at 2300 will l*,rr* that you are alone with Shahazad at Godown spend night over there, what you have to say?

I

Ans. Yes.

Q.9 That you reside on the first floor of your father's house situated in Sector 16lA Shah Latif Town, whatyou have to say?

Ans. Yes, Q.12. That such shirt of your father and your blood stained Shalwar were produced in evidence and are present in court today, what you have to saY?

Ans. Yes.

\P

Q.l3. That after this yotr escaped and hide in the washroom and its door was bolted from otrtside and while he was calling to police, you removed roof-bricks/tiles of the washroom and jumped from there to the backside open plot, what you have to say?

Ans. I did not jr*p but I slipped when my father was trying to fire on me with Pistol.

From tl.rc appellnnts olun admissions he corroborates thc prosecution case that he remained alone with the deceased on the fatufin night in the Godown.

(") PW 4 Usman Ghani is also an important witness. The accused is his real brother. Accorcling tct his evidetlce tl're accusecl was annoyecl with his sister's marriage to the r-leceaserl. On 22.02.2021, at about garn the accusecl returned home with tl're deceased phone wearing a shalwar which w,as stainecl with blood. He tolcl his fatl'rer rvho both went upstairs to coufront the accused. His father PW 3 Ghulam Rbhn'ran grabbecl both the cleceasecl and the accused rnolrile phones. The accused attacked his father and tore the font pocket of his fathers Qameez n hich lead to a fight between the fathel and the accused. The accused/ brother boltecl hiniself inside the washrootn. The accused jumper'l from the iirst floor where he sustained arr irrjur)' to his head atl.l a fractured leg as prover-r by the nreclical evirlence. His father' asker{ him to check on the deceased as the accuser-1 hatl confessecl to his murder. He went to the deceased neartry Godown where he saw the deceased with injuries on his face anc{ hands. He returned home and informed his father that the rleceased was deacl.

This witnesses evidence corroborates that of his father in tertns of the accuserl corning l'rome with the deceasecl rnobile phone, wearing a bloocl stained shalwar and after fighting with his father locking himself irr the w,aslr roorn frorn where he jumped arrd sustained injuries whilst lantiirrg on the grounr-l. This witness is the real brother of the accuser-1 and had ucr reasoll to irnplicate hirn in a false case and who gave his eviclence iu a straightforwarcl manner and was not dented during cross examination and r,r,hose evidence I find to be trustworthy reliable ancl confitlerrce inspiring and whose evictence I believe.

Corroborative evidence.

I (.,i) catl be fourrd in the medical evidence which ties in with the eviclence of the PW's as to the cause of death and weapon usecl i.e hatchet.

(r,ii) The recovel'y of the blood at the crime scene alor-rg with the hatchet (rnurcler weapon) and blood stainecl relli which produced positive chcrlical reports. These were recoverecl bv the police whcr hatl l1() enrnity or ill will with the appellant ancl lrarl no reasou to falseh' irrrplicate hirn in this case for example by planting the l'ratclret at tlle cr'irne scene anr-l in suclr like cases it is well settlecl try ttora,, that tlrc erririerrce of a police witrress is as goorl as alty other u,itness.

Y

(viii)The recoveretl mobile phone of the deceased from the accusect also supports the prosecution case.

(i*) The btood stained shalwar of the accused and the torn pocket of the Qatneez of the father also support the prosecution case,

I

72.I-Ience, I find that in all respects tl're law in respect of last seen evideuce has beerr met in respect of the accusecl especially as it has beell Pl'ovecl that the tirne u,hen the acctrsed u,as last seen/heard from by the deceasecl was a few hours before the deceased deatl'r; that they were alone; that it was not unusual for them to be together as they were related to each other; that the appellarrt hatl a motive to kili the deceased clue to his annoyance over the deceased rnarrying his sister; that the Godo\^/n where the murder took place was nearby the accused house; that the accused returned horne with the deceased mobile phone and his own shalwar was staineci in blood; that the murder weapon (hatchet) was recove1erl at the warclat along with blood stained earth and relli; that the accusetl injurer{ hinrself by trying to escape by jumping frorn the roof which leatl to him receiving hearl injuries anrl a broken leg (*hy would an innocent mall do this?); that the appellarrts S.342 Cr.PC statement through admission virtually corroborates the doctrine of last seerl evidence as given by the witnesses.

13.T'he appellant did not give evidence on oath and did not call any wituess in support of his clefence case. In fact he raised no defence.

1,4, I-Ience in the face of the reliable and trust worthy last seen eviclence eviclence I find that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable cloubt and dismiss his appeal.

GE ,.I ) ,"J

I t"'l

t