Muhammad Adeel Vs State

Judgment Sheet

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

ABBOTTABAD BENCH

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Cr.Appeal No. 57-A/2024

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing...................11.03.2026.................................

Appellant (Muhammad Adeel) By M/s Abdul Saboor Khan and Shakeela Ameen, Advocates.

Respondents. (State) Mr. Muhammad Shoaib, Assistant Advocate General.

ABDUL FAYAZ, J.- This criminal appeal is directed against judgment dated 02.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Abbottabad in case FIR No. 552 dated 15.08.2020 registered under Section 302 PPC at Police Station Nawanshehr, District Abbottabad, whereby appellant (Muhammad Adeel) has been convicted under Section 302 (b) PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life as Taázir with imposition of Rs.2,00,000/-, payable to legal heirs of deceased as compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. or in default to suffer further six (06) months S.I with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.

2.As per prosecution story, narrated in first information report (Ex.PW-10/1), it was on 15.08.2020 at 11:30 AM, when complainant of the case namely Basharat Khan (PW-05) while

accompanying the dead body of his sister Mst.

Rabia Noreen, reported the matter to the local police that he was in his house when Zahid who is his maternal cousin, telephonically informed him that accused Adeel has committed murder of Mst.

Rabia Noreen. On this information, complainant rushed to the spot and found the dead body of Mst.

Rabia Noreen lying on a cot. It was alleged in the report that deceased and accused had contracted love marriage against the wishes of parents of the deceased, two years prior to the occurrence and out of the wedlock one son namely Ismail was also born. On the basis of said report of the complainant, FIR was lodged against the accused.

3.After completion of investigation, challan was submitted before the learned trial court. Formal charge was framed against appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution produced fourteen (14) witnesses, whereafter accused was examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the allegation and professed innocence. At the conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above vide impugned

judgment. Appellant has filed the instant appeal, being aggrieved of ibid judgment.

4.We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel and gone through record.

5.The prosecution case, in substance, is that the deceased, who was wife of the appellant, was done to death by firearm inside the house where both were residing. The occurrence was not witnessed directly by any person in the sense of seeing the actual moment of firing, therefore the case rests upon a chain of circumstantial evidence comprising the place and manner of occurrence, the conduct of the appellant immediately after the event, the testimony of witnesses who reached the spot soon thereafter, medical evidence, recovery of crime weapon, forensic reports, and the judicial confession made by the appellant.

6.The record shows that it is an admitted feature of the case that the deceased along with her minor son was living in the house of the appellant.

The site plan prepared during investigation depicts that the occurrence had taken place inside the kitchen area of the dwelling house. The blood secured from the spot was sent for examination

and the serologist report supported the prosecution version regarding the place of occurrence.

Significantly, the place of occurrence was not seriously disputed either in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or in the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C.

Once the homicidal death of the deceased inside the house of the appellant stands established, a heavy burden shifted upon him to explain the circumstances in which his wife met an unnatural death within the safety of his home. No plausible explanation, however, was furnished by him.

7.The initial report was lodged promptly.

The prosecution evidence shows that upon receipt of information, the relevant witnesses and police reached the house and the dead body was found lying on a cot. The report was then recorded without undue delay. The promptitude with which the law was set in motion excludes the possibility of fabrication or deliberation to falsely implicate the appellant. The statement of the witnesses who reached the place soon after the occurrence also materially supports the prosecution case. One of the important witnesses, being the real sister of the deceased and living nearby, stated that on hearing

fire shots she rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the appellant present in the house while holding a pistol. Her statement further shows that the appellant disclosed before her that he had committed murder of the deceased. Despite cross- examination, her presence at the spot immediately after the occurrence and her seeing the appellant with pistol in hand could not be shattered. Mere relationship with the deceased was not sufficient to discredit her testimony particularly when no motive for false implication was suggested against her. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while delivering its judgment in the case of “Dildar Hussain Vs. Muhammad Afzaal alias Chala & 03 others” reported as PLD 2004 SC 663 has held that relationship of a witness with the complainant party per-se was not sufficient to discard his evidence, unless he is proved to have an ulterior motive to involve the accused in the case. Further reliance in this respect may also be placed on the judgment delivered in the case of “Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat & another” reported as 2012 SCMR 1869.

8.The other witnesses also supported the prosecution version with regard to the condition in

which the deceased was found and the surrounding circumstances following the occurrence. The medical evidence furnished by the lady doctor, who conducted postmortem examination, fully confirms that the deceased had received firearm injuries and that her death was homicidal. The postmortem report also shows retrieval of a projectile from the dead body. The appellant, in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., did not dispute that the deceased had died due to firearm injuries. Thus, the medical evidence is in full accord with the prosecution case and provides strong corroboration to the circumstance that the deceased was intentionally done to death by firearm.

9.The prosecution further produced evidence regarding the arrest of the appellant and recovery of a 30-bore pistol with magazine from his possession through recovery memo. The witnesses in whose presence the recovery was effected supported the same and no material contradiction could be elicited from their cross- examination. The defence merely denied the recovery but offered no convincing explanation as to why the prosecution witnesses would falsely

depose against the appellant in that regard. The empties recovered from the spot and the pistol recovered from the appellant were transmitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory through proper channel. The safe custody and onward transmission of the parcels remained proved through the statements of the concerned witnesses.

The fire-arms expert report turned positive and linked the crime empties with the recovered pistol.

This circumstance is of considerable significance because it directly connects the recovered weapon with the occurrence and furnishes a strong incriminating link against the appellant.

10.The investigating officer also proved the various steps taken during investigation including preparation of site plan, recovery memos, production of the appellant before the Magistrate for confessional statement and safe custody of the case property. Though the defence pointed out certain lapses in investigation and cloud over the exact mode of arrest, such matters, in the attending circumstances of the case, do not go to the root of the prosecution case. Defects or omissions in investigation, unless shown to have caused prejudice to the accused or to have destroyed the

core of the prosecution version, are not by themselves sufficient to discard otherwise reliable evidence. The evidence in the present case is to be examined as a whole and not by isolating one circumstance from another.

11.A very important piece of evidence available on the record is the judicial confession of the appellant. The record shows that the appellant was produced before the Magistrate through proper application and was afforded time for reflection. The Magistrate deposed that all necessary precautions were observed before recording the statement of the appellant and that he satisfied himself about the voluntariness of the confession. The confessional statement was then recorded in accordance with law. During his testimony before the trial Court, the Magistrate remained firm and nothing material could be extracted in cross-examination to suggest that the confession had been procured by coercion, inducement or pressure. The contents of the confession disclose a coherent and natural narration of events, which finds support from the surrounding circumstances and other evidence on record. The confession, therefore, cannot be

brushed aside lightly and carries substantial evidentiary value.

12.In his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., the appellant raised a belated plea of alibi by asserting that he was not present at home at the relevant time. No such stand was taken by him during investigation. More importantly, he did not lead any defence evidence whatsoever to substantiate that plea. A plea of alibi is a special plea and the burden to establish it lies upon the person who raises it. In the present case, the appellant utterly failed to discharge that burden.

On the contrary, the circumstances brought on record show that he was present at or around the place of occurrence and was later arrested on the same day. His false plea, therefore, constitutes an additional circumstance against him.

13.The conduct of the appellant after the occurrence is also not without significance. The record does not show that he behaved as a husband whose wife had been murdered by some unknown person in his own house. He neither accompanied the dead body in a natural manner nor furnished any plausible explanation regarding the circumstances in which the deceased was killed

within his home. His stance that he had lodged report against unknown persons is not borne out from the record and appears to be an afterthought.

His conduct, when read with the other incriminating circumstances, reflects guilty consciousness.

14.As regards motive, although the initial report may not have elaborately set it out, the material brought on record, particularly the contents of the confession, disclose that the appellant suspected the deceased of having illicit relations with an unknown person and that this suspicion had become a cause of serious resentment on his part. The existence of motive, therefore, also fits into the prosecution story and lends further assurance to the charge.

15.When the entire prosecution evidence is examined cumulatively, it forms an unbroken and coherent chain. The deceased died a homicidal death by firearm inside the house of the appellant.

The place of occurrence stands established. The appellant failed to explain the unnatural death of his wife within the safety of his home. A witness reached the spot immediately after the occurrence and saw him holding pistol in hand. The judicial

confession made by him stands proved and appears voluntary and truthful. The crime weapon was recovered from his possession. The positive fire-arms report links that weapon with the empties secured from the place of occurrence. The medical evidence confirms firearm injuries and homicidal death. His plea of alibi remained unproved and his subsequent conduct is incompatible with innocence. These

circumstances, when read together, leave no reasonable room for doubt and point unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant.

16.The learned trial Court, after proper appraisal of the evidence, reached the conclusion that the charge against the appellant stood proved.

Upon our independent assessment of the entire record, no illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence has been found in the impugned judgment. The conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is fully supported by the evidence available on file.

17.In view of what has been discussed hereinabove and as a result of reappraisal of evidence we are convinced that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant

beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution has, therefore, successfully bring home guilt of the appellant and this court does not find any substance in criminal appeal against conviction, which is hereby dismissed.

Announced

JUDGE

JUDGE

Hon’ble Justice Abdul Fayaz Hon’ble Justice Syed Mudasser Ameer /*Tufail. PS*/