IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, SUKKUR BENCH, SUKKUR

Criminal Appeal No.S-60 of 2020

Appellant: Zahoor Ahmed Sethar, through

Mr. Shamsuddin N. Kobhar, Advocate

Complainant: Muhammad Anwar, through

Mr. Rashid Ali Sindhu, Advocate

State: Through Shafi Muhammad Mahar,

Deputy Prosecutor General

Date of hearing: 28.02.2022

Date of decision: 20.05.2022

J U D G M E N T

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Through this criminal appeal, appellant Zahoor Ahmed son of Ghulam Sarwar Sethar, assailed the judgment dated 21.09.2020 (impugned herein) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC Ubauro, in Sessions Case No.395/2014, re-“State vs Zahoor Ahmed”, arising out of Crime No.123/2014, registered at Police Station Ubauro, under Sections 302, 393, 394 and 34 PPC, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302(b) PPC to suffer R.I for life as Tazir and to pay compensation of Rs.500,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased in terms of Section 544-A Cr.P.C, in default thereof he shall suffer S.I for six months more. He was also convicted and sentenced for offence under section 393 PPC to suffer R.I for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default thereof to suffer S.I for one month more and for offence under section 394 PPC he was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default thereof to suffer S.I for one month more . The sentences were ordered to be run currently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C was also extended to him.

2. Precisely the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Muhammad Anwar Sethar lodged FIR on 31.05.2014 at 1345 hours stating therein that on 29.05.2014, he had gone to the house of his brother-in-law namely Ashique Hussain, where he, his brother-in-law, his sister Mst. Latifan and cousin Mst. Samreen after taking night meal were sleeping. At about 3.30 night of 30.05.2014, they woke-up on the barking of dogs and saw on the light of bulbs that three persons duly armed with pistols, were available in the house, one of them was identified as Zahoor Ahmed while two were unknown. They on the point of weapons demanded valuables, from the complainant party, meanwhile complainant’s sister Mst. Latifan raised cries to which accused Zahoor Ahmed fired two shots of pistols upon her which hit on her neck and left arm and she died while unknown accused persons fired pistol shots upon Mst. Samreen which hit on her elbow of right arm and upper part of her right hand. Thereafter the accused persons ran away. After getting conducted postmortem of the deceased and completing funeral rites the complainant got registered the FIR.

3. After completing investigation the case was challaned, the trial court after completing all the` formalities framed the charge against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The Prosecution in order to prove its case examined 12 witnesses; PW-1 Dr. Syed Sarfaraz Ahmed Shah at Ex: 04, who produced police letter at Ex.4-A and medical certificate of injured Mst. Samreen at Ex.4-B, PW-2 Dr. Sabira Sultana at Ex-5, who produced postmortem report of deceased Mst. Latifan at Ex.5-B, PW-3 complainant Muhammad Anwar at Ex-6, who produced receipt of handing over the dead body at Ex.6-A and FIR at Ex.6-B, PW-4 Ashique Ali (Eye witness) at Ex-7, PW-5 mashir Muhammad Sharif at Ex-09, who produced memo of inspecting the dead body of deceased Mst. Latifan, Danishtnama of the deceased, memo of site inspection, memo of securing the last worn clothes of the deceased, memo of arrest of accused Zahoor Ahmed and memo of inspecting the injuries of injured Mst. Samreen at Exh.9-A to 9-F respectively, PW-6 mashir Muhammad Aslam at Ex.10, who produced memo of recovery of crime weapon at Ex.10-A, PW-7 PC Shah Nawaz Boohar at Ex.12, PW-8 Tapedar Parvez Akhtar at Ex.13, who produced police letter at Ex.13-A and sketch of the place of incident at Ex.13-B, PW-9 First I.O / SIP Yar Muhammad at Ex.14, PW-10 WHC Nawab Ali at Ex.15, PW-11 Second I.O/ SIP Rafique Ahmed Soomro at Ex.16 and PW-12 Chemical Examiner Tarique Abbas at Ex.18, who produced report of chemical examiner at Ex.8-A. Thereafter learned prosecutor closed the prosecution side vide his statement at Ex.19.

5. The statement of accused u/s 342 Cr.P.C was recorded at Ex-20 wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be innocent and prayed for justice. He did not examine himself on oath, however, examined DW/ PC Sobo Khan Rind at Ex.21 and DW /PC Nawab Ali Chachar at Ex.22 in his defence.

6. The trial court after hearing the parties and on assessment of evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above against which the appellant preferred this appeal.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the Appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated by the Complainant party; that there is more than one day delay in registration of FIR which has been registered after postmortem report and medico-legal certificate of injured as such false implication of appellant after due deliberation and consultation cannot be ruled out, that statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C of PWs Ashique Hussain, Nawab and Mst. Samreen were recorded after 10 days of registration of FIR while the investigation was started before registration of FIR; that last worn clothes of deceased and injured were not sent to chemical examiner as well as neither the empties nor the crime weapon was sent to the ballistic expert; that as per prosecution story the accused was identified on the bulb light but the same was also not produced; that there is inconsistency between evidence of eye witnesses and WMO regarding time of incident/ death of the deceased; that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses hence in these circumstances case of the prosecution is not free from doubts; that the impugned Judgment is against the law, facts, principles of natural justice and equity; that the learned trial court has erred in convicting the appellant by not taking into consideration the entire material and thus the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside; that impugned judgment is clear example of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the trial court has not considered the settled principle of law that a single dent in prosecution case, which seems to be necessary, goes in favour of accused. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the cases of Farman Ahmed v. Muhammad Inayat and others (2007 SCMR 1825), Arshad Khan v. The State (2017 SCMR 564), Riaz Ahmed v. The State (2010 SCMR 846), Muhammad Khan v. Maula Bakhsh and another (1998 SCMR 570), Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Asif and others (2007 SCMR 1812), Hashim Qasim and another v. The State (2017 SCMR 986), and Sheral alias Sher Muhammad v. The State (1999 SCMR 697).

8. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has contended that all the PWs have deposed in the same line; that the ocular evidence is in consistence with the medical evidence; that no major contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses has been pointed out; that the prosecution evidence is reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring; that the delay in registration of FIR and in recording 161 Cr.P.C statements have been explained; that non-sending of last worn clothes to chemical laboratory is lapse on the part of I.O and complainant will not suffer from the fault of I.O; that there is no question of mistaken identity as accused was already known to the complainant party; that preparation of inquest report, last chakas form and conducting postmortem of deceased before registration of FIR is not against the law as the same has been conducted in terms of Section 174 Cr.P.C r/w 25.31 of the Police Rules 1934, therefore question of carrying out investigation before registration of FIR does not arise at all; that the appellant is assigned direct role of firing upon deceased lady with repetition of fire and recovery of weapon on his pointation fully connects the appellant with the commission of offence. Lastly he prayed that in these circumstances the appeal may be dismissed and conviction awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court may be maintained. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the cases of Muhammad Rashid and another v. The State (2022 YLR 119), Nawab Ali v. The State (2014 P.Cr.L.J 885), Abdul Khalique v. The State (2020 SCMR 178), Muhammad Qasim alias Qasu and 3 others v. The State (2018 P.Cr.L.J 490), The State v. Noor Ahmad alias Thola and 3 others (1991 P.Cr.L.J 2007), Muhammad Tufail v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 786) and Hameer v. The State (2003 P.Cr.L.J 1452).

9. I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, learned counsel for complainant and have carefully examined the material available on record with their able assistance.

10. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined complainant Muhammad Anwar as PW-3, who is eye-witness of the incident and deposed that on 29.05.2014 he went to the house of his brother-in-law Ashique Hussain. His cousin Mohammad Nawaz and brother-in-law Ashique Hussain were present. His Sister Latifan aged about 32 years and cousin Mst. Samreen aged about 12 years were also present in the house. They after taking night meal went to bed. The lights were on; at about 0300 hours during night when the date changed to 30.05.2014, they woke-up on the barking of dogs and saw in the lights of bulb three persons standing in the house. One of them was Zahoor Sethar, the other two whose faces were opened but were not known to him. All of them were armed with pistols. They directed them to hand over the gold ornaments and money available in the house and to keep quite. His sister Mst. Latifan raised cries on which accused Zahoor fired on her which hit her on her neck. He repeated fire which hit on her upper part of left arm and passed from the back side. The other two accused persons also fired from their pistols which hit Mst. Samreen. Thereafter the accused persons went away while firing in the air. He also stated that Mst. Latifan died on the spot while Mst. Samreen had received fire arm injuries on the upper part of her right arm and right hand. They informed the police which reached on the place of incident and with the help of police and other relatives he removed the dead body of Mst. Latifan and injured Mst. Samreen to Taluka Hospital Ubauro. Taluka Hospital Ubauro referred injured Mst. Samreen to Rahim Yar Khan for treatment and the dead body to Taluka Hospital Daharki for postmortem from where it was again referred to Taluka Hospital Ghotki for postmortem. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to him. On 31.05.2014 he lodged FIR and showed the place of incident to the SHO. Complainant denied that he has any enmity with the father of appellant and the appellant also failed to establish that he was involved due to some enmity.

11. Evidence of complainant was also corroborated by another eye-witness Ashique Hussain PW-4, who narrated the same facts as stated by the complainant. He fully supported the case in respect of date, time and manner in which incident took place including the identity of the accused. He was cross-examined by the defence counsel and during cross-examination stated that the accused is residing about 2/3 KMs away from the village of complainant party. In respect of identity at night time on question of the defence counsel he stated that the bulb was fixed in the Chapra where he alongwith other witnesses were sleeping on cots and accused were identified by them at the distance of 10/12 feet. No major contradiction appears in his evidence and his evidence found reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring, no enmity whatsoever has been suggested to this witness for false implication of the appellant in the present case.

12. The ocular evidence was further corroborated by medical evidence produced by prosecution Dr. Sarfraz Ahmed as PW-1 was examined, who deposed that on 30.05.2014 he was posted as Medical Officer at Taluka Hospital Ubauro on that day, he received letter dated 30.05.2014 of PS Ubauro as well as injured Mst. Samreen d/o Mohammad Soomar. He examined injured and found following injuries on her person.

1. Lacerated punctured wound 1 cm x 1 cm into (muscle deep) dorsal aspect of right and near wrist joint.

2. Lacerated punctured wound over palms aspect of right hand 1 cm x 1 cm (muscle deep)

3. Lacerated wound 1 cm x3 cm over upper 1/3^rd over right arm.

The kind of weapon used was Fire arm, he declared injuries No.1, 2 Ghayere-e-Jaifa muttalimiah, injury No.3 Ghayere-e-Jaifah Damia and probable age of injuries was fresh within six hours.

In respect of postmortem of deceased Mst. Latifan the prosecution examined Dr. Sabira as PW-2, who deposed that on 30.05.2014 she was posted as WMO at Taluka Hospital Ghotki. On that day, she received letter through PC Shahnawaz of PS Ubauro regarding postmortem examination and report of Mst. Latifan, wife of Ashique Ali. According to her the dead body was identified by Mohammad Nawaz, the cousin of deceased, and Razi Khan, the father-in-law of deceased. She started the postmortem at 9.30 am and finished at 11:00 am on the same date. According to her she found on external appearance on the dead body of deceased; fire arm injury on neck. On dissection skin s/c tissue, fascia, blood vessels & tracheal rings damaged. Fracture of 5^th cervical bone and spinal cord damaged at site of injury. Dead body was of middle age lady with normal physique. She found following injuries on the dead body of the deceased:-

Injury No.1 One lacerated fire arm injury about 01 cm in size with inverted margins on front of neck, wound is through and through on back of neck towards left side of center of neck. Exit wound is also 01 cm in size with everted margins.

Injury No.2 One lacerated fire arm injury on left upper arm at deltoid muscle region wound is about 01 cm in size with inverted margins, wound is through and through on to scapular region on left side of back of chest. Exit wound is also 01 cm in size with everted margins.

From the external and internal examination of deceased Latifan Sethar, she was of the opinion that the death has occurred due to discharge from fire arm, she was died due to shock and hemorrhage. All injuries were ante mortem in nature. The probable time between injuries and death was instantaneous and between death and postmortem would be within six hours. The evidence produced by the prosecution in shape of two doctors discussed above established that the deceased Mst. Latifan was died unnatural death and the injured Mst. Samreen received firearm injuries. PW-7, PC Shah Nawaz stated that on 30.05.2014 he got conducted postmortem of deceased Mst. Latifan and after postmortem handed over the dead body to her brother Muhammad Anwar and the last worn clothes of the deceased were handed over to SIP Yar Muhammad.

13. After the ocular and the medical evidence, the evidence furnished by the prosecution to prove the circumstantial evidence i.e recovery of crime weapon from appellant Zahoor Ahmed, has examined PW-6 Muhammad Aslam who has fully supported the case and stated that it was 14.06.2014, he and Abdul Jabbar were available at village Mari where Police came, accused Zahoor was in police mobile. Police officer asked them to accompany with them as they were going to the house of accused Zahoor for some recovery. When they reached near the house of accused Zahoor he asked to stop the police mobile, his house was situated near village Mari. He led them and police in his house, an Iron trunk was kept in one room on the eastern side of his house and he produced one 30 bore pistol before the police officer in their presence. Police officer checked the pistol which was giving smell of gun powder and it was found containing three live bullets of 30 bore. On pistol the 220033 number was inscribed and accused disclosed that it was without licensed. Police officer sealed the weapon on the spot and prepared memo of recovery of pistol in his presence and in presence of Abdul Jabbar. Accused Zahoor Ahmed was arrested by SIP Abdul Hameed Shaikh, who has expired as such PW-10 HC Nawab Ali was examined who had remained posted with said SIP Abdul Hameed Shaikh and acquainted with his signature. He deposed that he saw mashirnama of arrest of accused Zahoor dated 8.06.2014 it bears the signature of SIP Abdul Hameed. He also saw mashirnama of recovery of pistol Ex.10/A, it also bears his signature. These witnesses were cross-examined by the defence counsel but their evidence was not shattered. Mashir Muhammad Sharif PW-5 was also examined who deposed that in his presence dead body of Mst. Latifan was inspected. The place of incident was inspected in his presence wherefrom blood stained earth and four empties of 30 bore pistol were collected. The last worn clothes of the deceased Mst. Latifan were handed over to the investigation officer in his presence. The accused/appellant was arrested in his presence and the police inspected the injuries of injured Mst. Samreen. All the memos were prepared in his presence. He supported all the memos and corroborated the ocular account. The Tapedar Pervez Akhter was examined as PW-8, who produced the sketch of place of wardat papered by him and then the Chemical Examiner Tariq Abbas Dareshani was examined as PW-12, who deposed that the blood stained earth of the deceased was found as human blood in positive. He also exhibited the report in respect of blood stain earth taken from the place of incident.

14. The first Investigating Officer SIP Yar Muhammad was examined as PW-9, who deposed that on 30.05.2014 he was posted as SIP at police station Ubauro. On the same day information about the death of Mst. Latifan was received at the police station as such he along with his staff reached the place of incident in official mobile where they saw the dead body of Mst. Latifan lying in the house. They arranged private mashirs Hoat and Muhammad Sharif and prepared mashirnama of inspection the injuries of dead body in presence of said mashirs. He also noted injuries of injured Mst. Samreen and prepared mashirnama in presence of same mashirs. The dead body was handed over to PC Shahnawaz Boohar for conducting postmortem, who took the same to the Hospital. Thereafter further investigation of the case was conducted by SIP/SHO Rafique. The author of FIR and second Investigating Officer Rafique Ahmed was examined as PW-11, who deposed that on 31-05-2014 he was posted at Police Station Ubauro. On that day complainant Mohammad Anwar appeared at police Station and disclosed the facts of a cognizable offence as such he lodged FIR as per his verbatim. The FIR was read over to the complainant who accepted it to be true and correct and put signature and LTI on it. On the same date he inspected the place of incident at the pointation of the complainant at 1430 hours in presence of mashirs Mohammad Sharif and Hoat Khan. At the place of incident there was a thatched hut (Chapro) in front of two rooms (kotha). He found blood lying on the ground in front of thatched hut (Chapro) for which the complainant disclosed that it was blood of deceased Mst. Latifan. He collected the blood stained earth and sealed the same in a plastic jar which was also sealed with signature of Mohammad Sharif and LTI of Hoat Khan. He also secured four empties of Pistol from the spot and the same were also sealed with signature of Mohammad Sharif and LTI of Hoat Khan and prepared mashirnama with signature of Mohammad Sharif and LTI of Hoat Khan at spot. On the same date at 1900 hours last worn clothes of the deceased were handed over to him by PC Shah Nawaz which he sealed in presence of same mashirs and prepared such memo. He wrote letter to Mukhtiarkar for preparing sketch of the site and letter of permission to his officer for sending the property to chemical examiner. On his transfer he handed over the papers of this case to SHO Abdul Hameed Shaikh for further investigation.

15. The contention of learned counsel that there is delay of about one day in registration of FIR, therefore the case is doubtful and its benefit must goes to the appellant, has no force as according to contents of FIR at the first instance complainant took the deceased and the injured to Hospital for postmortem of deceased and treatment of the injured and they had been waiting for the parents of the deceased who had gone to Jehlam to meet with their son serving in army. On return of her parents and funeral rites the FIR was lodged as such the delay, if any, in registration of the FIR was properly explained by the complainant. In this circumstance the delay, if any, occurred in the registration of FIR is not fatal to the case of prosecution in the particular fact and circumstance of the present case. In the case of Abdul Khalique Versus The State (2020 S C MR178),  in similar facts and circumstances the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:-

3.         After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Prosecutor General at length and perusal of available record with their assistance, it has been observed by us that though there is delay of about sixteen hours in lodging the FIR but the fact remains that it has come on record that complainant side had sent Muhammad Umer, cousin of deceased Khalil Ahmed, whose name was also given in the FIR, to P.S. Bulri Shah Karim for issuance of letter for medical treatment of injured Khalil Ahmad (deceased) from the hospital and in this respect a Rapat was recorded by the police at 11.30 p.m. on the day of occurrence and a letter was also issued with the signatures of ASI to the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Tando Muhammad Khan for conducting medical examination of Khalil Ahmad (deceased) and for issuance of medico-legal certificate. Dr. Nizamuddin (PW6) who medically examined Khalil Ahmad in injured condition stated in his examination in chief that Khalil Ahmad was brought by his relatives on 18.07.2014, who informed him that their relative had gone to police station for obtaining the letter, whereupon he (PW6) started examination of Khalil Ahmad. He further stated that in the meantime the said relative brought the letter of police. The said letter has been exhibited as Ex.16/A. The doctor (PW6) further stated in his cross-examination that he referred Khalil Ahmad to LUMHS Hyderabad after giving him first aid at 11.05 p.m. on 18.07.2014. In this respect, referral letter has been exhibited as Exh.16/B. A glance at the postmortem examination report of Khalil Ahmad issued by Dr. Salahuddin (PW7), MLO at LUH Hyderabad reveals that Khalil Ahmad was admitted in the said hospital on 19.07.2014 and he expired there on 21.07.2014. In these circumstances, the delay in lodging the FIR has reasonably been explained by the prosecution. Even otherwise, the first priority of kith and kin of Khalil Ahmad (deceased) was to save his life and they tried to do so by first taking him to local hospital, wherefrom he was referred to a hospital at Hyderabad. Even in this process, they reported the matter to police and obtained official letter of police for medical examination of Khalil Ahmad (deceased).

16. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded with delay and the prosecution failed to explain such delay which is fatal to the prosecution has also no force as it is by now settled that intentionally or otherwise any concession extended to the accused by the Investigating Agency shall not term fatal its own case. The belated recording statement of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. is no ground to brush aside the statement of witnesses. Reliance is placed on the case of Qaisar Hussain alias Kashi alias Kashif v. The State (2011 PCr.L.J 1126), wherein it was held:

"12. Learned defence counsel during arguments pointed out the statement of P.W.8 Mukhtiar son of Rehman Khan one of the eye-witnesses in whose presence the abductees were forced by the accused including the present appellant to accompany them and he during cross-examination stated "I made statement before the police after about fix days, of the occurrence." Learned defence counsel has tried to draw an inference rather to get benefit in favour of the appellant that as it was a delayed statement recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C., therefore, it has no value. No doubt in normal course after registration of an FIR statement of a witness who has been shown as such in the initial report with the police if his statement is recorded with delay, an adverse inference is to be drawn and this statement to some extent becomes valueless but if the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen it is clear from the record as narrated above that occurrence took place on 12-9-1999 and FIR was got recorded by P.W.6 Muhammad Iqbal complainant on 18-9-1999 by explaining the delay of six days that due to fear of the accused/appellant as they threatened for dire consequences in case it was disclosed to the police and on the same day i.e. 18-9-1999 the statement of P.W.8 Mukhtar was also recorded by the police, therefore, this objection is without any substance. It is further to be clarified here that recording of statement of the P.W. with delay is not itself sufficient to discard its value, the circumstances make it so. If the statement is delayed due to certain ulterior motives like filling up certain lacunas in the prosecution version then it has become valueless and if circumstances justified then every statement recorded with delay is not to be discarded."

17. Learned counsel for the appellant though pointed out some minor contradictions in the evidence of witnesses but the same are not sufficient to discard their evidence. Even in the cases where some minor contradictions may available which are not sufficient to create any serious doubt the same can be ignored which always are available in each and every case, as has been held by Honourable Supreme Court in case of Zakir Khan V. The State (1995 SCMR 1793), relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:-

“13. The evidence recorded in the case further indicates that all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported each other on all material points. However, emphasis has been laid by Mr. Motiani upon the improvements which can be found by him in their respective statements made before the Court and some minor contradictions in their evidence were also pointed out. A contradiction, unlike an omission, is an inconsistency between the earlier version of a witness and his subsequent version before the Court. The rule is now well established that only material contradictions are to be taken into consideration by the Court while minor discrepancies found in the evidence of witnesses, which generally occur, are to be overlooked. There is also a tendency on the part of witnesses in this country to overstate a fact or to make improvements in their depositions before the Court. But a mere omission by witness to disclose a certain fact to the Investigating Officer would not render his testimony unreliable unless the improvement made by the witness while giving evidence before the Court has sufficient probative force to bring home the guilt to the accused.”

18.             Contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the witnesses are closed relatives to the deceased and are interested witnesses has also no force particularly in the case in hand as they are natural witnesses. In the present case there appears two eye witnesses of the incident i.e complainant Muhammad Anwar and PW Ashique Hussain who have fully supported the case against the appellant by specifically deposing that the appellant Zahoor Ahmed had directly fired upon the deceased Mst. Lateefan from pistol which hit her. Both the witnesses remained consistent during the trial on all material particulars of the prosecution case in so far as the role attributed to the accused was concerned. Testimony of prosecution witnesses was corroborated by medical evidence, which was consistent with the ocular account in so far as the weapon, locale of injury and time which elapsed between the injury and postmortem examination were concerned. Although the witnesses are relatives of the deceased but they specifically narrated each and every aspect of the incident and their presence at the time of incident had established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of NASIR IQBAL @ NASRA and another V. The STATE (2016 S C M R 2152), has held as under:-

"In the above circumstances, we found that the ocular evidence furnished by the eye-witnesses to be credit worthy and confidence inspiring and we have not been able to observe any defect or material lacunas in their evidence; their presence at the spot had been established beyond any shadow of doubt; both the eye-witnesses were of course closely related to the deceased but fact of the matter remains that their mere relationship would not render them to be interested or partisan witnesses when the same has been corroborated with the medical evidence as well as the recoveries of crime weapon and the motive has fully been proved as such in our view no interference is required in conviction of the appellants."

19.                   To believe or disbelieve a witness all depends upon intrinsic value of the statement made by him. Even otherwise, there cannot be a universal principle that in every case interested witness shall be disbelieved or disinterested witness shall be believed.  It all depends upon the rule of prudence and reasonableness to hold that a particular witness was present on the scene of crime and that he is making true statement. A person who is reported otherwise to be very honest, above the board and very respectable in society if gives a statement which is illogical and unbelievable, no prudent man despite his nobility would accept such statement as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Abid Ali & 2 others v. The State (2011SCMR 208).

20.                   Thus based on the discussion made herein above and on the reassessment of entire evidence produced by the prosecution, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the appellant by producing reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring oral evidence as well as medical evidence, so also the documentary evidence in support of the same. I, therefore, uphold all the sentences, fines, and penalties for each offence in the judgment whilst dismissing the appeal of the appellant.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA