IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, SUKKUR BENCH, SUKKUR
Cr.
Jail Appeal No.S-97 of 2021
Appellants: Nisar
and another through M/s. Sarfraz Khan Jatoi and Muhammad Afzal Jageerani, advocates.
Complainant: Nemo
State: Through
Syed Sardar Ali Shah, DPG
Date of hearing: 07.02.2022
Date of decision: 18.03.2022
J U D G M E N T
Zulfiqar
Ali Sangi, J: Through
this appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment dated 06.04.2019
(impugned herein) passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC,
Kambar Shahdadkot @ Kambar, whereby they were convicted under section 265-h(ii)
Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life and to pay Rs.300,000/-each as compensation to the legal
heirs of deceased in terms of Section 544-A Cr.P.C and in case of default, they
shall suffer S.I for six months more; besides they were sentenced to suffer R.I
for five years for offence under Section 324 PPC and to pay Arsh
to the tune of Rs.6,85,312/-each (1/3 of Diyat, which is Rs.20,55,963/-) at
present for payment to injured Abdul Majeed Brohi within the period prescribed
by law.
2. Succinctly case of prosecution as
depicted from FIR captioned above is that on 13-9-2015 complainant Raza Muhammad
Shaikh lodged FIR at P.S Drigh stating therein that
on 13-9-2005 at 7:30 am near the land of Murad Brohi accused 1) Ali Akbar S/o Ghulam
Hussain, armed with rifle, 2) Niser S/o Ibrahim,
armed with Rifle, 3) Akhtiar @ Moar
S/o Ali Akbar, armed with 222 Rifle, 4) Ibrahim S/o Ghulam Hussain, armed with Rifle,
05) Riaz S/o Ali Akbar armed with Rifle and 06) Mumtaz
S/o Abdul Qadir Soomro, armed with gun all R/o village
Glulam Hussain Shaikh Taluka
Kamber intercepted the complainant party on the way and
out of them accused Ali Akbar S/O Ghulam Hussain Shaikh fired with his rifle at
Ameer Ali Brohi, which hit him at his abdomen and accused Nisar S/o Ibrahim
also fired with his rifle at complainant's son Abdul Majeed which also hit him
at the abdomen so the complainant and witnesses beseeched them on holy oaths on
which they, making aerial firing went towards their houses.
3. After investigation the case was challaned, the trial court after completing all formalities
framed the charge against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
4. The
Prosecution examined 08 witnesses (i) ASI Mashooque Ali Chandio the author of
FIR as PW-01 at Exh: 09 who produced FIR at Exh-09/A.
(ii) Raza Muhammad Brohi Complainant as PW-02 at Exh-10, (iii) Abdul Majeed
Brohi (injured eye witness as PW-03 at Exh-11, (iv) Ameer
Bux Brohi (Eye witness) as PW-04
at Exh-12, (v) Dr. Mushtaque Ahmed Noonari as PW-05 at Exh-14, who produced two original medical
referral letters bearing NO.522 Dated 13-9-2005 issued by ASI P.S Drigh to M.O, CMC Hospital Larkana, original MLC of injured
Abdul Majeed, original final MLC dated 10-10-2005 of injured Abdul Majeed showing
reserved injury as Jurh-Jaifah, original MLC of Ameer
All and original Post-Mortem report of Ameer Ali at Exh-14/A to 14/F, (vi) Tapedar Hussain Bux Gaad as PW-06 at Exh:15, who produced original sketch of
place of incident at Exh-15/a. (vii) Mashir Muhammad Umer Brohi as PW-07 as Exh:16, who
tendered in evidence original mashirnama of inspection of place of incident,
recovery & seal of empties of rifle & gun cartridges original
mashirnama of inspection of injuries of both injured, original mashirnama of
inspection of dead body of deceased Ameer Bux Brohi, original danistnama of
deceased Ameer Bux, original mashirnama of arrest and body search of accused
Ali Akbar and Riaz Hussain, (viii) I.O Aijaz Ali Massan as PW-08 at Exh-17, who tendered in evidence
departure Entry NO.05, letter bearing NO.79/2005 dated;12-9-2005 in
respect of addition of section 302 PPC at Exh-17/a & 17/b. Thereafter
learned DDPP closed the prosecution side vide his statement at Ex.18.
5. The statements of the accused were
recorded in terms of section 342 Cr.P.C at Exh-19 to 24 wherein they denied
prosecution allegations and claimed to be innocent and prayed for justice,
however, they neither examined themselves on oath U/S 340 (2) Cr.P.C nor examined
any witness in their defence.
6. The
trial court after hearing the parties and on assessment of evidence convicted
and sentenced to the appellants as stated above against which the appellants
preferred this jail appeal.
7. At the very outset, learned
Counsel for the Appellants have contended that the Appellants are innocent and
have falsely been implicated by the Complainant party; that the complainant and
witnesses are admittedly nominated in FIR bearing Crime No.78 of 2005,
registered by the Appellant No.1 at P.S. Drigh for an
offence punishable under Sections 324, 148, 149, 337-h (ii) PPC; that there
were material contradictions in the evidence of complainant as well as eye
witnesses hence case of the prosecution cannot be free from shadow of
reasonable doubt; that the impugned Judgment is
against the law, facts, principles of natural justice and equity; that learned
trial court has erred in convicting the appellants 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 their
contention, learned Counsel have placed reliance on the cases of Muhammad Mansha
vs. The State (2018 SCMR 772), Tariq Pervez vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345),
Muhammad Javaid vs. The State (2016 P Cr. L J 18),
Muhammad Akram vs. The State (2009 SCMR 230),
Muhammad Sadiq vs. The State (2017 SCMR 144), Amin
Ali vs. The State (2011 SCMR 323) and Muhammad Noor vs. Riaz Shah and another
(2016 MLD 757). Lastly, they submitted that the impugned judgment may be
set-aside and the appellants may be acquitted by extending them the benefit of
the doubt in the interest of justice.
8. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has mainly
contended that all the PWs have deposed in the same line; that the injured
eye-witness also fully supported the case; that ocular evidence is in
consistence with the medical evidence; that no major contradiction in the
evidence has been pointed out however some minor contradictions has been
pointed out in the evidence of witnesses which are not sufficient to acquit the
appellants; that the prosecution evidence is reliable, trustworthy and confidence
inspiring. Lastly he prayed that by dismissing instant appeal, conviction
awarded by the learned trial Court may be maintained.
9. I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellants as
well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have carefully examined the
material available on record with their able assistance.
10. The evidence produced by the
prosecution in the shape of ocular and medical evidence coupled with
documentary evidence, including medico Legal reports of the injured Abdul
Majeed and the Postmortem report of the deceased Ameer Ali, established beyond
any shadow of reasonable doubt that on 13-09-2005 at about 0730 hours at the
land of Murad Brohi near the houses in village Ghulam Hussain Shaikh they
received firearm injuries on their person and later on injured Ameer Ali was
died in the hospital on 18-09-2005, due to un-natural death. The prosecution in
order to prove the injuries and the death of deceased as un-natural examined Dr. Mushtaque Ahmed, who had
examined injured Abdul Majeed and conducted postmortem of deceased Ameer Ali, deposed that on 13.09.2005 he was posted as CMCH
Larkana as Assistant Police Surgeon. On that day he received injured Abdul
Majeed and Ameer Ali, referred by SHO Drigh, vide
letters No.522 dated 13.09.2005 for treatment and examination. Injured Abdul
Majeed son of Raza Muhammad Brohi was examined and he found the following
injuries on his person:-
1-A. One lacerated punctured wound 0,6 Crn in diameter into cavity
deep below umbilicus on lower port of abdomen with everted
margins (wound of entry).
1-B. Lacerated punctured wounds 2 cm in diameter with everted margins on right back of chest lumber region (wound
of exist of injury No.1-A).
11. The
injuries were reserved for expert opinion and it was finalized on 10.10.2005, then
he issued final medical certificate. According to him the injuries were caused by
firearm. The injury was declared Jurh Jaifah, then provisional and final medico legal
certificates of injured were issued by him.
12. Injured
Ameer Ali son Ameer Bux
Brohi was also examined on 13.09.2005 and found the following injuries on his
body.
1-A. One
lacerated punctured wound 0.6 cm in diameter on right side of abdomen near
umbilicus into cavity deep with everted margins
(wound of entry).
1-B. 2 ¼ cm in
diameter everted margins on right side back of chest
near vertebral column. (wound of exist of injury
No.1-A).
13. The
injuries were kept reserved. According to him probable duration of injuries in
respect of injured were fresh and discharge by fire arm, therefore the same
were reserved for observation and X-ray. He issued provisional medical
certificate in respect of Ameer Ali on 13.09.2005, then injured expired away
and postmortem was conducted by Dr. Ghulam Muhammad Memon, Medico Legal
Officer, CMCH Larkana on 18.09.2005. The said doctor
had expired away due to his natural death and such postmortem report was issued
by him. He see the postmortem report and verified the signature and stated that
he know his signature as he worked with him in same department. The postmortem
was conducted at 03:30 pm to 04:10 pm and death of deceased had occurred due to
fire arm as per the report of said doctor.
14. In order to prove ocular and circumstantial evidence
the prosecution examined PW1/ASI Mashooq Ali who
deposed that on 13-09-2005 he was posted as ASI at PS Drigh,
on the same day at about 2300 hours complainant Raza Muhammad Brohi came at PS Drigh and he recorded FIR under section 154 Cr. P.C and
read over the contents of the FIR to complainant, he accepted the same to be correct
and obtained LTI thereon. Thereafter the investigation was transferred to the
investigation branch. FIR is a counter FIR of Crime No.78/2005 of the same PS.
He was cross-examined by the defence counsel but there is no denial that FIR
was not registered.
15. The prosecution then examined Complainant
Raza Muhammad as PW-2 who deposed that on 12.9.2005, Ameer Bux and Ameer Ali
came to him as guest in the evening time. On the next morning about 07:00/ 07:30
am they were passing from the land of Murad Brohi where they saw that accused Ali Akbar, Mour @ Akhtiar,
Riaz, Ibrahim. Nisar, Mumtaz Soomro duly armed confined them. Accused Akbar
armed with Rifle, Nisar with rifle, Riaz with rifle, Ibrahim with rifle. Mumtaz
Soomro with gun, Mour @ Akhtiar armed with 222 rifles. Accused Akbar gave hakal
and asked that why they are coming as there is dispute between Murad and them over
land, hence he kills them. Accused Akbar made fire which hit to Ameer Ali at his
abdomen. Accused Nisar made fire which hit to his Son Abdul Majeed on his
abdomen. The remaining accused persons also made aerial firing upon them. Then
they gave the names of Holy Quran to the accused persons, thereafter they went
to their village. Then he arranged the vehicle and shifted the injured to
Larkana Hospital. Thereafter he came at P.S Drigh at
about 10:00/11:00 pm for registration of FIR which was registered and then
Police visited the place of incident on the next day on his pointation and
prepared such mashirnama of place of incident and secured blood stained earth,
empty shell of rifles and cartridges. On 18.9.2005 Ameer Ali was expired at Hospital.
He was cross-examined at length by the defence counsel but no major
contradiction in his evidence is seen.
16. The prosecution then examined
injured eye-witness namely Abdul Majeed as PW-3 who deposed that on 12.9.2005
Ameer Ali and Ameer Bux came as guest. On 13.9.2005 in the morning time at about
07:00 am, he, complainant Raza Mohammad, Ameer Ali and Ameer Bux came out from
their house and reached at the land of Murad Brohi where they saw accused lban s/o Ghulam armed with rifle,
Ali Akbar armed with rifle, Nisar armed rifle, Riaz with rifle, Mour @ Akhtiar armed
with 222 rifle, Mumtaz armed with gun. Accused Akbar challenged Ameer Ali and
asked them that they would kill them, then accused
Akbar made straight fire from his rifle which hit to Ameer Ali on his abdomen. Accused
Nisar made rifle fire which hit him on his abdomen. Then remaining accused made
aerial firing and then went towards their houses. Thereafter they were shifted
to Larkana Hospital. Then his father went to P S and lodged FIR. Police saw his
injuries and prepared such mashirnama at hospital. His statement under Section
161 Cr. P.C was recorded by the police. He was cross-examined by the defence
counsel but failed to point out any major/material contradiction in the
evidence.
17. The
prosecution examined third eye-witness of the incident namely Ameer Bux as PW-4
who deposed that on 12.9.2005 he, his son Ameer Ali went to their relative Raza
Muhammad and stayed there as guest. On 13.9.2005 in the morning, he, his son
Ameer All, Raza Mohammad and his son Abdul Majeed left the house of Raza Mohammad
and proceeded towards their village and when at about 07:30 am, reached at the
land of Murad Brohi, where they saw six persons and identified them as Ali
Akbar s/o Ghulam Husain Shaikh, Mour @ Akhtiar s/o Ali Akbar, Riaz s/o Ali
Akbar, Ibrahim s/o Ghulam Hussain Shaikh, Nisar s/o Ibrahim, Mumtaz s/o Abdul
Qadir Soomro All the six persons gave hakal to them and asked Ameer Ali that
why they came there, as there is a dispute in between them and Murad over the
land, therefore, he would not be spared and would be done to death. Then
accused Akbar made straight fire from rifle which hit to Ameer Ali at his abdomen
which went through and through who fell down. Accused Nisar s/o Ibrahim made
straight fire upon Abdul Majeed which hit him at his abdomen and went through and through.
Thereafter remaining four accused making aerial firing went away towards their
houses. Thereafter they shifted the injured through Taxi to Larkana hospital
and complainant went to P.S and lodged the FIR. On 18.9.2005 his son Ameer Ali had expired. On 26.9.2005 Police recorded his
statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. This eye-witness was also cross-examined and except
some minor contradiction nothing is brought on record which favours the
appellants.
18. The
prosecution examined Tapedar namely Hussain Bux as PW- 6 who prepared the sketch of place of wardat and
exhibited in the evidence. His evidence is only in respect of place of wardat
which even otherwise has not been disputed by the defence counsel as no
suggestion was made to him that the incident was not taken place at the place
for which he prepared the sketch. The prosecution further examined mashir of
the case namely Muhammad Umar as PW-7 who deposed that on 14-09-2005, at about
06:30 am, I.O inspected place of incident in his presence and collected two
empties of triple two rifle, 08 empties of other rifle and four red empties of
cartridges of 12 bore and sealed the same in one parcel. He prepared such
mashirnama and went away. After that on the same date, he also inspected
injuries of injured Ameer Ali and Abdul Majeed in CMC Larkana
in his presence. He also prepared such mashirnama and went away. After few days,
injured Ameer Ali expired in the hospital and he saw that his dead body was
lying in the hospital. Further, the same police officer also arrested the
accused on 14-09-2005 in his presence. The mashir during cross-examination on
suggestion of defence counsel admitted that he was the Hari
(farmer) of accused Ali Akbar. No direct enmity was suggested with this witness
for deposing falsely against the appellants.
19. The
important witness of the case, investigation officer Aijaz Ali was
examined as PW-8 who deposed that on 13-09-2005, he was posted as SIO PS Drigh, on the same date, ASI Mashooque
Ali Chandio handed over him FIR of Crime No. 79/2005,
U/Ss 324, 148-149 PPC as well as complainant to him
for investigation, hence he started investigation on the same date. In the
first instance, he arrested complainant Raza Muhammad, who was wanted in FIR,
Crime No. 78/2005 of PS Drigh, such mashirnama was prepared in presence of mashirs. Thereafter,
on 14-09-2005, he inspected place of incident at the pointation of the complainant
in presence of mashirs namely Muhammad Umar Brohi and Manzoor Ali Brohi. The place
of incident was a land, situated outside of the village Ghulam Hussain Shaikh,
Taluka Kamber. He deposed that during such investigation, secured two empties
of triple two rifle, 08 empties of other rifle and four red empties of
cartridges
of 12 bore. He deposed that he sealed the
recovered property into separate parcels, prepared such mashirnama in presence
of both mashirs and also obtained their LTIs on it. After that on the same date,
he inspected injuries of injured Ameer Ali Brohi in Government Hospital at Larkana
in presence of same mashirs. He found that both injured Ameer Ali and Abdul Majeed
sustained firearm injuries. He prepared such mashirnama there and also obtained
thumb impressions of both mashirs on it. After that, he tried to record
statements of both injured U/S 161 Cr.P.C, but they were not in a position for recording
such statement. After that on 18-09-2005, injured PW Ameer Ali expired, hence
he proceeded towards CMC Hospital Larkana, where he found the dead body,
inspected it and also prepared such mashirnama in presence of the same mashirs
and obtained their thumb impressions. Thereafter, he also prepared such
Danistnama in their presence and also obtained their thumb impressions on it. After
that, he referred the dead body of Ameer Ali to the concerned Surgeon of the
hospital through PC Allah Warayo for his post-mortem. Thereafter, he added
Section 302 PPC in this case due to expiry of one injured Ameer Ali. Further on
22-09-2005, he arrested two nominated accused namely Ali Akbar and Riaz Hussain
from their guest house (Otaque) in presence of same mashirs and prepared such
mashirnama of their arrest, body search and also obtained LTIs of both mashirs.
On 25-09-2005, he also recorded statement of eye witness namely Abdul Majeed
Brohi in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C in CMC Hospital Larkana and on 26-09-2005,
he recorded the statement of another eye witness namely Ameer Bux Brohi U/s 16l
Cr.P.C. During investigation, he recoded statements of neutral persons namely
Nasrullah Shaikh, Khadim Hussain Shaikh, Deedar Shaikh, Kaleemullah Shaikh and
others, who stated that accused Ali Akbar Shaikh was with them at village Areeja
at the time of alleged incident. As such, he concluded investigation and
submitted challan by placing the name of accused Ali Akbar Shaikh in Column No.
02 and submitted such report in the Court. This witness was cross-examined
during which he admitted
that he also investigated the case FIR No. 78/2005 lodged by the appellant
Nisar and the place of incident of both the FIR’s is situated in the same
village. No material contradiction in his evidence is found.
20. On
reassessment of the entire evidence as discussed above it appears that the prosecution
has proved the case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt by
producing reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring evidence. Three
eye-witnesses of the incident deposed against the appellants, one of them
received firearm injury at the time of incident. They all are in consistence with
each other that the appellants made direct fire form their respective weapons upon
the injured and the deceased. It is a day time incident and the parties
are known to each other, therefore there is no chance of mistaken identification.
21. The
FIR of the present case was registered promptly. Incident took place on
13-09-2005 at 0730 hours, FIR was registered on the same day at 2300 hours and
the injured were examined by the doctor on the same day at 9-30 am, which exclude the possibility of consultation or
deliberation on the part of the prosecution. It is also established
from the evidence of the witnesses that after the incident complainant immediately
went to the hospital to save the life of injured persons and thereafter leaving
them at hospital immediately reached at police station, and after the FIR
police along with the complainant came at the hospital. The complainant and the
injured witness gave full particulars of the incident to the police. The Honourable
Supreme Court in case of FARMAN ALI and another V.
The STATE and another (2020 S C M R 597), has held as under:-
4.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Farman Ali in Criminal
Petition No.29-P/2012, and also perused the whole record in Jail Petition
No.76/2012, preferred by Amjad Ali co-convict of Farman Ali and observed that
in this case the occurrence took place at about 5.15 p.m. The Police after
coming to know about the occurrence arrived in the Emergency Department of the
Hospital where Muhammad Askar Khan, Complainant/PW-1,
reported the matter. The postmortem was conducted on the same day after about
one hour of the occurrence. In the FIR, it is specifically mentioned that the
petitioners Farman Ali and Amjad Ali along with Malik Alam (P.O.) fired at the
deceased Muhammad Ajmal Khan. Due to their firing, the deceased received fire
shots and succumbed to the injures. The names of the
eye-witnesses have specifically been mentioned in the FIR. In
this case, the matter was promptly reported to the police and the postmortem
was also conducted promptly, which exclude the possibility of consultation or
deliberation on the part of the prosecution.
22. Contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants that the witnesses are related to each other and are
interested, therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon has no force as although
the witnesses are relatied to each other but they
specifically deposed against the appellants. Complainant immediately approached
the police station where his FIR was registered in which he has given full
particulars of the incident, thereafter, police proceeded towards the hospital,
two persons received injuries from which one died and one is alive who also
fully supported the version of complainant mentioned in the FIR, hence the
presence of complainant and the eye witnesses at the place of incident fully
established. In the case of Nasir
Iqbal @ Nasra and another v.
The State (2016 SCMR 2152), the Honourable Supreme Court 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."
23. 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 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. Reliance can be
place on the case of Abid Ali & 2
others v. The State (2011 SCMR 208). The
mere fact that a witness is closely related to the accused or deceased or he is
not related to either party, is not a sole criteria to judge his independence
or to accept or reject his testimony rather the true test is whether the
evidence of a witness is probable and consistent with the circumstances of the
case or not as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the
case of Lal Khan v. State (2006 SCMR
1846). It is well settled by now that merely on the ground of
inter se relationship the statement of a witness cannot be brushed aside. Even
the ‘friendship or relationship with the deceased will not be sufficient to
discredit a witness particularly when there is no motive to falsely involve the
accused as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the
cases of Zulfiqar Ahmed & another v. The State (2011 SCMR
492) and Iqbal alias Bala v. The
State (1994 SCMR 01).
24. Another contention of learned
counsel for the appellants that crime weapon used by the appellants at the time
of offence was not recovered from the appellants, therefore, the appellants
cannot be connected with the offence, has no force in view of that, all the
prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution by deposing that the
appellants directly fired from their respective weapons which hit the injured
and the deceased and their direct evidence is further corroborated by medical
evidence as the doctor who examined the injured and the deceased had found
firearm injuries on their person. It is settled by now that where charge
was proved by other direct, natural and confidence inspiring evidence, then
non-recovery of crime weapon was not fatal to the prosecution case. Reliance is
placed on the case of Sikander Teghani alias Muhammad Bux Teghani v.
The State (2016 Y L R 1098).
25. Learned
counsel for the appellants pointed out some minor contradictions and
discrepancies in the evidence which in my view are not sufficient to hold that
the case of prosecution is doubtful. It is settled by now that, where in the
evidence, prosecution established its case beyond a reasonable doubt then if
there may some minor contradictions which always are available in each and
every case the same may be ignored, 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.”
26. Thus
based on the discussion made hereinabove 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 appellants
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.
JUDGE