IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SINDH, AT KARACHI
Criminal Jail Appeal
No. 21 of 2020
Appellant: Syed
Qamar Abbas Shah through Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed Shah advocate
The State: Through
Ms. Rubina Qadir, Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh
Date of hearing: 24.10.2022
Date of judgment: 24.10.2022
J U D G M E N T
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the appellant committed
murder of his wife Mst. Kaneez Akbar by causing her fire shot injuries, for
that he was booked and reported upon by the police. After due trial, he was
convicted under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
and to pay compensation of Rs.500,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased and
in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months with benefit of
section 382(b) Cr.P.C, by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC
Karachi South vide judgment dated 13.11.2019, which is impugned by the
appellant before this Court by preferring the instant appeal from jail.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for
the appellant that the appellant being innocent has been involved in this case
falsely by the complainant party by substituting him with the real culprit of
the incident and evidence of the P.Ws being doubtful has been believed by
learned trial Court without lawful justification, therefore, the appellant is
entitled to his acquittal by extending him benefit of doubt.
3. None has come forward to advance
arguments on behalf of the complainant. However, learned DPG for the state by
supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of instant jail appeal
by contending that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the
appellant beyond shadow of doubt.
4. Heard arguments and perused the record.
5. It was stated by complainant Daniyal Raza
and his sister P.W Mst. Hina Batool that their father was a constable in Pakistan
Railway, on 27.04.2014, after attending his night duty at Railway Station
Cantt., Karachi, he came back at his quarter at about 0330 hours/0345 hours and made a knock
on its door, on which they and their mother Mst. Kaneez Akbar woke up, their
mother opened the door, their father came inside of the room, sit on the cot, there
he was inquired upon by their mother as to whether the rifle with him was
loaded or it is empty, he made no reply to it and then proceeded to his room,
he was followed their mother, he turned back and then fired at their mother;
she after sustaining such fire shot injuries; fell down, on cries, P.Ws Salar
and Zafar Abbas came running; their father was apprehended and was locked in
the room of the quarter and then they took their injured mother to Jinnah
Hospital, there she died of such injury; the incident was then reported to the
police by making statement under section 154 Cr.PC; the appellant was formally
arrested by P.W I.O/SIP Khadim Hussain, from him was secured the official rifle,
which he used in the commission of incident. It, as per I.O/SIP Abdul Malik, on
forensic examination, was found matched with the empty secured from the place
of incident. The evidence of the complainant and P.W Mst. Hina Batool takes
support from the evidence of P.W Zafar Abbas. They have stood by their version
on all material points despite lengthy cross-examination. Indeed they were
having no reason to have involved their own father falsely in a murder case of
their own mother by substituting him with the real culprit of the incident.
Whatever is stated by the complainant and her witnesses, as above, takes
support from ancillary evidence, the same could not be disbelieved on account
of irrelevant and immaterial consistencies with regard to the time of death and
arrest of the appellant. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right
to conclude that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the
appellant beyond shadow of doubt. The reason which prevailed with the trial
Court for awarding lesser punishment to the appellant obviously was that there
was no motive of the incident.
6. In case of Arshad Beg vs. The State (2017
SCMR 1727), it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that;
“5. This
occurrence which took place in the broad daylight occurrence was reported to
the Police with due promptitude as the FIR was got registered just after one
hour of the occurrence. The ocular account was furnished by brothers of the
deceased namely Afzal Beg complainant (PW.6) and Muhammad Ashraf Beg (PW.7).
They were cross-examined by the defence at length but they remained consistent
on all material aspects of the case. Even otherwise this is a case of single
accused and substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon as normally
kith and kin of the deceased (in this case real brothers) would not implicate
an innocent person by letting off the real culprits. Therefore, we hold that
both the witnesses of ocular account were present at the spot and had witnessed
the occurrence. Ocular account furnished by these witnesses is substantially
supported by medical evidence as three firearm injuries were observed on the
person of Sharif Beg (deceased) out of which only one was exit would whereas
two were entry wounds. Therefore, the prosecution case stood proved against the
appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and conviction of the appellant under
section 302(b), P.P.C. is fully justified……”
7. In view of the facts and reasons
discussed above, it is concluded safely that no case to interfere with the
impugned judgment is made out; consequently, the instant jail appeal is
dismissed.
JUDGE