Sunday 3 June 2012

How to deal with a case of unseen occurrence?

PLJ 2012 FSC 94
[Appellate Jurisdiction]

Present: Shahzado Shaikh & Rizwan Ali Dodani, JJ.

TAHIR MEHMOOD and another--Appellants

versus

STATE--Respondent

Crl. Appeal No. 232/L of 2005 and Jail Crl. A. No. 118/I of 2007, decided 15.9.2011.

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--

----Ss. 302(b) & 392--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--It was an un-seen occurrence--No claim for having last seen--In such cases appreciation of evidence places more responsibility on the shoulders of everyone concerned to apply deeper and specific diagnosis methods rather than ordinary analysis--Considering probable time of occurrence, appearance of complainant, brother of deceased was neither improbable nor unnatural, keeping in view, present-day means of communication, even if he would not have been scheduled to visit her sister, as stated by him. Therefore, question mark put on such probability was not sustainable and even otherwise it cannot lend any support to the appellant in the prosecution case itself against him--Similarly, once the occurrence is claimed by counsel for the appellant as unseen, and as admittedly it is unseen, his observation about non-production of witness from the neighbour, is also not sustainable--In a murder case where no witness usually comes forward, blood-bound witnesses like daughters and brothers and those closely related, in fact heir like husband, in this case, could all be legally acceptable witnesses, in spite of all their interest in relationship and heirship--For each pointation of and recovery of weapons of offence, blood stained clothes, cash and gold ornaments, duly identified, from each appellant, there are private witnesses also--As regards the question of law about Section 162 Cr.P.C, as pointed out by the Counsel for appellant that if there was any wrong treatment of the application which was submitted by complainant before the police for registration of the case, the same was on the part of the police and not on the part of complainant as the complainant, being only middle-pass, had acted in good faith just to report his version of the occurrence in order to get justice and he stated in his cross-examination that before moving complaint for registration of FIR, he had no knowledge that any FIR of the occurrence had already been registered--It was for the police to record the complaint or the information provided by the complainant to the Police vide Ex.PH as second FIR--Complainant cannot be made to suffer for the technical lapses on the part of the Police/Investigation--There is an inherent bigger danger involved in rejecting outright the subsequent complaint or information reported to the Police in form of complaint and prima facie making it inadmissible as if non-existent to be processed in evidence, even for the limited purpose and in the prescribed manner, provided u/S. 162 Cr.P.C.--Such outright rejection or total inadmissibility may favour the criminal tactics of offenders who can afford faster means to get their false of the honourable apex Court (PLD 2005 SC 297) a safeguard has been set in the mechanism for recording such subsequent complaint or report as second FIR, in order to ensure judicious dispensation in such cases--Even from plain reading of above provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. shows that the statement recorded under this section is not non-existent--It is very much extant and useable, but for the specified purpose and under specific procedure, as laid down--When it is "used in the re-examination of such witness" even "for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination," it is found to be very much useful in bringing the truth of the matter for purpose of dispensation of justice--From the facts and reasons that the occurrence in the instant case has taken place in the manner as suggested by the prosecution--Prosecution has successfully proved its case by producing confirmatory evidence in this regard. In this case there is no room for doubt. Even otherwise Counsel for the appellants have not succeeded to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment--Appeals dismissed.      [Pp. 113, 114, 115, 116 & 117] A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H & I

Sheikh Tariq Mehmood & Sheikh Asghar Ali, Advocates for Appellants (in Crl. Appeal No. 232-L of 2005).

Miss Raisa Sarwat, Advocate for Appellant (in Jail Crl. Appeal No. 118/L of 2007).

Mr. Seerat Hussain Naqvi, Advocate for Complainant.

Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, D.P.G. for State.

Date of hearing: 15.9.2011.

Judgment

Shahzado Shaikh, J.--Appellant Tahir Mehmood through Criminal Appeal No. 232/L/2005 and appellant Sajid Ali alias Sajjad Ali Munna through Jail Criminal Appeal No. 118/I/2007 have challenged the judgment dated 31.03.2005 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under:--

Tahir Mehmood appellant:

Conviction                                           :           Sentence

(i)         under Section 302(b) of the
Pakistan Penal Code                            :           life imprisonment with
                                                                        direction to pay Rs. 50,000/- as
                                                                        compensation under Section
                                                                        544-A of the Code of Criminal
                                                                        Procedure to the legal heirs of
                                                                        Mst. Ferhat Bibi deceased or in
                                                                        default thereof to further
                                                                        undergo six months simple
                                                                        imprisonment.

(ii)        under Section 392 of the
Pakistan Penal Code                            :           four years rigorous
                                                                        imprisonment with fine of
                                                                        Rs. 5,000/- or in default  thereof
                                                                        to further undergo two months
                                                                        simple imprisonment.

Sajid Ali alias Sajjad Ali Munna appellant:

Conviction                                           :           Sentence

(i)         under Section 302(b) of the
Pakistan Penal Code                            :           life imprisonment with
                                                                        direction to pay Rs. 50,000/- as
                                                                        compensation under Section
                                                                        544-A of the Code of Criminal
                                                                        Procedure to the legal heirs of
                                                                        Mst. Hajran Bibi deceased or in
                                                                        default thereof to further
                                                                        undergo six months simple
                                                                        imprisonment.

(ii)        under Section 392 of the
Pakistan Penal Code                            :           four years rigorous
                                                                        imprisonment with fine of
                                                                        Rs. 5,000/- or in default thereof
                                                                        to further undergo two months
                                                                        simple imprisonment.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However the learned trial Court acquitted accused Muhammad Akram by giving him benefit of doubt. Both the above-mentioned criminal appeals are being disposed of by this single judgment as they arise out of one and the same judgment and crime report.

It may be pointed out here that Ghulam Muhammad PW.9, the complainant, had filed Criminal Appeal No. 171/L/2005 against acquittal of Muhammad Akram accused as well as Criminal Revision No. 59/L/2005 for enhancement of sentences awarded to the appellants which were dismissed on 15.09.2008 for lack of prosecution.

2.  The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Ghulam Muhammad PW.9 submitted complaint Ex.PH before the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhang, wherein it was stated that about 18 years ago his sister Mst. Ferhat Bibi was married with Afsar Ali Khan and they were living happily. The step brothers and step mother of Afsar Ali Khan used to tease Mst. Ferhat Bibi and she often made complaints about Tahir Mehmood to the complainant who (Tahir Mehmood) used to extort money from her by extending threats. On 16.04.2003 the complainant alongwith Yar Muhammad went to Ahmad Hassan at Model Town Burewala from where they made programme to go to Faisalabad. However on the insistence of the complainant they (all the three) proceeded to Jhang as the complainant wanted to see his sister, on the way. At about 5.00 p.m. they reached the house of complainant's sister situated in Mohallah Sultanwala, Jhang, where many people had gathered outside and inside the house. They came to know that Mst. Ferhat Bibi and her maid Mst. Hajran Bibi were murdered at noon time and their dead bodies were taken to the hospital. The complainant suspected Tahir Mehmood for this occurrence. They went to hospital where Tahir Mehmood and Muhammad Akram met them. On query Tahir Mehmood while weeping stated that Afsar Ali went to his duty early in the morning while his daughters went to school. He and his friend Sajjad Ali needed money and on finding Mst. Ferhat Bibi alone, he alongwith Sajjad Ali, armed with daggers, entered the house while his brother Akram remained on guard outside. He demanded money from Mst. Ferhat Bibi and on her refusal he snatched her gold ornaments. She made resistance and caught him upon which he gave repeated dagger blows to her. In the meanwhile Mst. Hajran, maid, who was present in the kitchen, raised alarm. Sajjad Ali alias Munna caught Mst. Hajran and injured her by giving dagger blows. Both the ladies died at the spot. Sajjad Ali put `dupatta' around the neck of Mst. Ferhat Bibi and tied her with the cot. They went out of the house and bolted the door. Then Tahir Mehmood, without informing Afsar Ali about the occurrence, laid oral information to the police which was recorded by Muhammad Sharif Sub Inspector PW.13 as Ex.PJ on 16.04.2003 wherein it was stated that at about 7.30 a.m. his brother Afsar Ali went to Shorkot on his duty while his daughters went to school and he went to Kuchery on his job. Mst. Ferhat Bibi and maid Mst. Hajran were alone in the house. At about 2.00 p.m. he returned home from Kuchery and found that door of the house of Afsar Ali was opened and many people gathered there. He entered the house of Afsar Ali and saw that Mst. Ferhat and Mst. Hajran Bibi were lying dead and house hold articles were scattered in the house. He further stated in the complaint that some unknown persons had murdered Mst. Ferhat Bibi and Mst. Hajran Bibi by giving them dagger blows. This complaint Ex.PJ was registered as FIR No. 164/03 Ex.PJ/1.

3.  Investigation ensued as a consequence of registration of crime report. Muhammad Sharif Sub-Inspector PW.13 undertook the investigation. He recorded complaint Ex.PJ on the statement of Tahir Mehmood accused at People Chowk where he was present on patrol duty and forwarded the same to Police Station through Bashir Ahmad constable for registration of the case. He reached at the spot, inspected the place of occurrence, prepared injury statement Ex.PF and inquest report Ex.PD of Mst. Ferhat Bibi as well as injury statement Ex.PF/1 and inquest report Ex.PG of Mst. Hajran. He sent the dead bodies to DHQ Hospital, Jhang for post-mortem examination through Khadim Hussain constable. Ghulam Muhammad complainant submitted an application Ex.PH before him. He recorded statements of Ahmad Hassan and Yar Muhammad under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He inspected the place of occurrence on the pointation of Ghulam Muhammad, Yar Muhammad and Ahmad Hassan and prepared site plan Ex.PT. He collected the blood stained earth from both the places of dead bodies, prepared two different sealed parcels, took the same into possession through memo. Ex.PL and Ex.PN and recorded statements of Ahmad Hassan and Yar Muhammad PWs in this regard. After post-mortem examination of the dead bodies Khadim Hussain constable handed over to him post-mortem reports of both the deceased alongwith last worn clothes of Mst. Ferhat Bibi shirt P.13, shalwar P.14, dopatta P.15 and last worn clothes of Mst. Hajran Bibi shirt P. 16, white dopatta P. 17, blood stained shalwar P. 18 and two sealed vials which he took into possession through memo. Ex.PK. He recorded statement of Khadim Hussain constable. On 17.04.2003 he recorded supplementary statement of Ghulam Muhammad complainant and also recorded statements of PWs under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 18.04.2003 he recorded statements of Mst. Saddaf Afser and Sana Afsar daughter of Mst. Ferhat Bibi deceased. He got prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PA and Ex.PA/1 through Sofi Muhammad Asif Munawar, Draftsman. He arrested accused Sajid Ali on 22.04.2003 while Tahir Mehmood and Muhammad Akram accused were arrested on 23.04.2003. On 26.04.2003 during investigation Sajid Ali accused got recovered dagger P. 19 from a petti lying in a room of his house and Rs. 1500/- from underneath the petti. He also got recovered gold ornaments khanti P.I, koka P.2, pair of ear rings P.3/1-2. one tikka P.4 which were taken into possession through recovery memo. Ex.PN and statements of Ahmad Hassan and Yar Muhammad PWs were recorded in this respect. Accused Tahir Mehmood got recovered dagger P.20 from beneath the trunks, which was taken into possession through recovery memo. Ex.PR. He also got recovered four gold bangles P.5/1-4, two golden rings P.6/1-2, locket P.7, one pair of ear rings P.8/1-2 and cash amount of Rs. 1500/- which were taken into possession through recovery memo. Ex.PQ. He also got recovered clothes from beneath the stairs shirt P.26, blood stained shalwar P.27, which were taken into possession through recovery memo. Ex.PS. Sajid Ali accused got recovered ornaments and cash amount which were taken into possession through recovery memo. Ex.PO. He also got recovered his blood stained clothes from the roof of his house i.e. shalwar P.22, string P.21, shirt P.20 which were taken into possession through recovery memo. Ex.PP. On 28.04.2003 Abdul Hafeez and Afsar Ali identified the ornaments P.1 to P.8 and their statements were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After completion of the investigation the Station House Officer submitted report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court on 20.05.2003 requiring the accused to face trial.

4.  The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused on 09.10.2003 firstly under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code, secondly under Section 302/34 for committing murder of Mst. Ferhat Bibi, thirdly under Section 302/34 for committing murder of Mst. Hajran Bibi and fourthly under Section 17 of the Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

5.  The prosecution produced thirteen witnesses in order to prove its case. The gist of the deposition of the witnesses is as follows:--

(i)         PW.1 Muhammad Munawar Asif Draftsman stated that On 19.04.2003 he alongwith the Investigating Officer and PWs inspected the spot, took rough notes on the pointation of the PWs and prepared site plan in the scale of 1" equal to 20 feet. After completion site plan Ex.PA and Ex.PA/1 he handed over the same to the Investigating Officer on 26.04.2003.

(ii)        PW.2 Haq Nawaz constable had deposited two sealed parcels of blood stained daggers and two sealed parcels of blood stained shalwar and shirt in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Lahore on 05.05.2003 which were handed over to him by Muhammad Akram Moharrar on 04.05.2003.

(iii)       PW.3 Lady Dr. Misbah ul Qamar had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Ferhat Bibi on 16.04.2003. Her observations are as follows:

            "It was dead body of a healthy lady aged about 40 years, lying on post-mortem table, with eyes and mouth closed. Claded in three clothes printing Qameez, Ferozi shalwar and Dopatta. (clothes were blood stained). Rigor mortis present, post-mortem staining present.

1.         An incised wound V shape 5 cm x 5 cm x cavity deep present on upper part of left side of abdomen 40 CM. to the left of mid line.

2.         An incised wound 8 cm x 5 cm x cavity deep present on left side of abdomen, 3 cm to the left of umblic gut is coming through this wound.

3.         An incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present in the centre of abdomen 2 cm above Injury No. 2.

4.         An incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm x cavity deep present on left side of abdomen 11 cm on the left of Injury No. 2, gut is coming out through this wound.

5.         An incised wound 4 cm x 3 cm x cavity deep present on right side of abdomen.

6.         An incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present on front of medial side of lower part of right forearm. Corresponding cuts were present on the clothes.

Scalp, Skull and vertebrae.

Scalp and skull intact and healthy. Vertebrae not opened.

Membranes and brain: Intact and healthy and spinal cord not opened.

Thorax: Thorax walls and all the viscras were intact and healthy. Heart intact and healthy and all the chambers were empty.

Abdomen:

Walls, injuries already mentioned. Peritoneum injured and abdominal cavity was full of blood. Stomach, injured, contains about 3/4 Ounces of semi digested food. Small intestines injured at many places, containing digested juices and gases. Large intestines injured at many places containing gases and fecal matter. Liver injured. Organs of generation internal and external, intact and healthy non-gravid uterus. Three vaginal swabs were taken, sealed and sent to the Office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore for semen detection and Serological test. All other abdominal viscras were intact and healthy.

Opinion:

Death in this case is caused by Injuries, 1, 2, 4 and 5. Leading to severe shock and haemorrhage due to injury to liver, stomach, small intestines and large intestine, which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by sharp edged weapon. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and P.M. Examination was within 12 hours.

After the P.M. Examination I handed over to the police, the well stitched dead body, carbon copy of P.M.Report, Police papers, a sealed vial, a sealed envelope alongwith last worn clothes of the deceased. Ex:PB is the correct carbon copy of P.M.Report, which is in my hand and signed by me. I also endorse injury statement Ex:PC and inquest report Ex:PD and sketch of injuries Ex:PB/1, and Ex:PB/2 which are also in my hand and signed by me."

The Lady Doctor also conducted P.M.Examination of the dead body of Mst. Hajran and observed as follows:

"It was the dead body of a lady aged about 45/46 years, lying on P.M.table with eyes and mouth closed. Claded in brown printed Qameez, Ferozi shalwar, Dopatta. Clothes were blood stained. Rigor mortis was present and P.M.staining was present. The following injuries were noted on her person:--

1.         An incised wound 12cm x 2cm x muscle deep present on front of left side of neck.

2.         An incised wound 5cm x 1cm x muscle deep present on front of lower part of neck, 2cm below Injury No. 1.

3.         An incised wound 6cm x 2m x cavity deep (between 5th and 6th ribs) present on left breast 2cm above left nipple.

4.         An incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep present on right breast 2 cm above right nipple.

5.         An incised wound 4cm x 1cm x muscle deep present on right side of upper part of abdomen.

6.         An incised wound 6cm x 3cm x muscle deep present on upper part of right side of abdomen 4cm from the Injury No. 5.

7.         An incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep present on upper part of left of abdomen 02 cm to the left of mid line.

8.         An incised wound 3cm x 1 cm x cavity deep present on left side of abdomen, 6cm from the Injury No .7.

9.         An incised wound 3cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present on lower abdomen.

10.       An incised wound 4cm x 2 cm x muscle deep present on upper part of left arm and extending through and through the medial side of upper arm.

11.       An incised wound 3cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present on left forearm upper part.

12.       An incised wound 6cm x 2 cm x muscle deep present on upper part of front of right forearm.

13.       An incised wound 4cm x 2 cm x muscle deep present on front of upper of left thigh.

14.       An incised wound 5cm x 2cm x muscle deep present on left side upper and inner part.

15.       An incised wound 9cm x 2cm x bone exposed present on front of left leg.

16.       An incised wound 3cm x 1cm x bone exposed present in the middle of back, (corresponding cuts were present on the clothes).

Scalp, skull and Vertebra)

Scalp and skull intact and healthy. Vertebrae not opened. Membranes and brain: intact and healthy. Spinal cord not opened.

Thorax:

Injuries to walls and ribs already mentioned. Pleaura injured, chest cavity contained blood. Left lung injured. Heart intact and healthy and both chambers empty. Other thorax viscaras were intact and healthy.

Abdomen;

Injuries to abdominal walls were already mentioned. Skin of front of the abdomen burnt. (injured and peritonial cavity was full of blood). Stomach injured and contained about 2 Ounces of about semi digested food. Small intestines injured at many places containing digested juices and gases. Large intestines injured at many places containing gases and feacal matters. Liver injured, spleen injured, both kidneys, bladder, pancreas and diaphragm were intact and healthy. Organs of generation external and internal were intact and healthy. Non-gravid uterus. Three vaginal swabs were taken and handed over to Police for sending to Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Lahore, for semen detection and Serologist test.

Opinion:

Death in this case was caused by Injury No. 3, 7 and 8 leading to severe shock and haemorrhage due to injury to left lung, liver, stomach, spleen, small intestines and large intestines. Which is sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by sharp edged weapon. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and P.M.Examination was within 12 hours. After the P.M. Examination a well stitched dead body, carbon copy of P.M. Report, police papers, a sealed vial, a sealed envelope alongwith last worn clothes of the deceased were handed over to police. Ex.PE is the correct carbon copy of my P.M.Report, which is in my hand and signed by me. Sketch of injuries Ex:PE/1 and Ex.PE/2 are also in my hand and signed by me. I also endorsed injury statement Ex.PF and inquest report Ex.PG."

(iv)       PW.4 Ejaz ul Hassan constable had delivered two sealed parcels containing blood stained earth of Mst. Ferhat Bibi and Mst. Hajran Bibi, two sealed vials and two sealed envelops in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Lahore on 23.04.2003 which were handed over to him by Muhammad Akram Moharrer on 22.04.2003.

(v)        PW.5 Muhammad Jamil stated that Ghulam Muhammad complainant and Ahmad Hassan rang him up from Burewala and told him that they had got to Faisalabad via Jhang and they would take lunch with him at Jhang. He took his wife to bazaar for purchasing house hold articles and after leaving his wife in the bazaar he went to the house of Afsar Ali Khan in Mohallah Sultan Wala where Muhammad Akram accused was present in front of the house of Afsar Ali Khan. He inquired from Muhammad Akram accused about Ghulam Muhammad and Ahmad Hassan who told that they had come there.

(vi)       PW.6 Afsar Ali, husband of Mst. Ferhat Bibi deceased, stated that on the day of occurrence he was on his duty at Shorkot. Riaz Gujjar ASI PS Shorkot City informed him about the murder of his wife and maid servant Mst. Hajran Bibi. He came to his house and found many people gathered there. He got recorded his statement before the police at his house wherein it was stated that murder of his wife and maid servant was committed by his step brothers Tahir Mehmood and Akram accused with the consultation of their mother. Sajid Ali accused, friend of Tahir Mehmood and Akram accused, was also involved in the murder of his wife and maid servant. He, on checking his house, found gold ornaments i.e. four bangles, two rings, one tikka, koka, two set of ear rings, one locket, one kenthi and cash Rs. 4200/- missing. The witness had identified the dead body of Mst. Ferhat Bibi at the time of post-mortem examination. He identified the stolen property before the police on 28.04.2003.

(vii)      PW.7 Sana Afsar daughter of Mst. Ferhat deceased sated that she alongwith her sister returned home from school at abut 1.30 p.m. The outer door of her house was chained from outside. After opening the door she alongwith her sister went inside the house and found that her mother Mst. Ferhat Bibi and maid Mst. Hajran Bibi were lying murdered. The chains of the boxes were broken. On their alarm the women of the vicinity gathered. The witnesses further stated that three days prior to the occurrence her step-uncle Tahir Mehmood and Muhammad Akram at the instance of their mother Mst. Ferozan had taken oath on Holy Quran to finish the family of Mst. Ferhat Bibi. Their residential house was in the name of Mst. Ferhat Bibi and the accused wanted to get transferred the said house in their names forcibly, and for this purpose they had beaten her mother. In absence of her father both the accused used to snatch money from her mother after beating her. Accused Muhammad Akram, Tahir Mehmood and Sajid Ali after looting the ornaments and the currency notes murdered her mother and maid servant Mst. Hajran Bibi.

(viii)     PW.8 Zafar Iqbal had identified the dead body of Mst. Hajran Bibi in the mortuary before the WMO at the time of her post-mortem examination.

(ix)       Ghulam Muhammad complainant appeared as PW.9 and endorsed the contents of his complaint Ex.PH.

(x)        PW.10 Muhammad Akram Moharrar had formally drafted FIR Ex.PJ/1 on receipt of complaint Ex.PJ. On 16.04.2003 he received a sealed parcel containing blood stained earth as well as two sealed parcels containing vaginal swabs alongwith two envelopes for onward transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Lahore. On 22.04.2003 he handed over the above said four sealed parcels alongwith envelopes to Ejaz ul Hassan constable for deposit in the office of Chemical Examiner. On 26.04.2003 the Investigating Officer also handed over to him the parcel of blood stained clothes of the accused Sajid Ali and other blood stained parcel of clothes of Tahir Mehmood accused for safe custody in the Malkhana. On 04.05.2003 he handed over the above said sealed parcels to Haq Nawaz constable for depositing in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Lahore.

(xi)       PW.11 Khadim Hussain constable stated that on 16.04.2003 the Investigating Officer had handed over to him dead bodies of Mst. Ferhat Bibi and Mst. Hajran Bibi alongwith relevant police papers for autopsy. He produced both the dead bodies alongwith police papers before the WMO for P.M. Examination. After the autopsy the lady doctor handed over to him blood stained last worn clothes of Mst. Ferhat Bibi i.e. shirt P.13, shalwar P. 14, dopatta P. 15 and a sealed vial. She also handed over to him the last worn blood stained clothes of Mst. Hajran Bibi i.e. shirt P. 16, dopatta P. 17 and shalwar P. 18 alongwith a sealed vial. He produced the above said articles before the Investigating Officer who took the same into possession through memo. Ex.PK. The witness attested the memo. Ex.PK and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(xii)      PW.12 Yar Muhammad supported the version of complainant Ghulam Muhammad PW.9.

(xiii)     PW.13 Muhammad Sharif Sub-Inspector had undertaken the investigation, the details have already been mentioned in paragraph 3 of this judgment.

6.  The prosecution after tendering in evidence repots of Chemical Examiner Ex.PP of Mst. Ferhat Bibi, Ex.PQ of Mst. Hajran Bibi, Ex.PR regarding crime weapons, Qameez and Shalwar, Ex.PS regarding blood stained earth of Mst. Ferhat Bibi and Mst. Hajran Bibi, and report of Serologist regarding blood stained earth Ex.PT, closed its evidence on 03.01.2005. Thereafter the learned trial Court recorded statements of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 03.03.2005. The accused denied the allegations levelled against them and claimed their innocence. In reply to question "Why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you?" appellant Tahir Mehmood stated as under:--

"In fact there was a dispute between Afser Ali who was our step brother and ourselves. Family of complainant Ghulam Muhammad was also inimical towards us. The house purchased by Mst: Ferhat Bibi was purchased with the money of Afser Ali and it was in the name of Mst: Ferhat Bibi. Afser Ali wanted to get back his house and there had been quarrel in between the spouses. Mst: Ferhat Bibi had given birth to three daughters and she was not in a position to give birth any other child. Afser Ali wanted a son and for this purpose he wanted to have second marriage, to which Mst: Ferhat Bibi did not agree. This was also a cause of grudge. Afser Ali with the help of some one got committed murder of his wife Mst. Ferhat Bibi and maid servant Mst. Hajran Bibi after administering tranquilizer, and thereafter with the help of his relatives got me falsely implicated in this case."

7.  Accused Muhammad Akram endorsed the reply of his brother Tahir Mehmood. Accused Sajid Ali alias Sajjad Ali Munna in reply to above-mentioned question stated as under:--

"In fact I am resident of same street where the occurrence had taken place. My inmates of the house including me had gone to attend the marriage ceremony and my house was locked. Afser Ali PW pressurized me to become a witness in this case and to depose as he desired against my co-accused Tahir Mehmood and Muhammad Akram and on my refusal he became angry and involved me falsely in this case. All the PWs are related inter-se and with Afser Ali PW and they deposed against me at the instance of Afser Ali PW. In fact no recovery was effected from me."

8.  The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and completing the codal formalities convicted the appellants as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment.

9.  We have gone through the file. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as statements of accused have been perused. The relevant portions of the impugned judgments have been scanned.

10.  During the course of arguments, Sheikh Tariq Mehmood, learned counsel for appellant Tahir Mehmood stated as under:

(i)         That it is an un-seen occurrence as no body had seen the accused while entering or leaving the house of Afsar Ali where the alleged occurrence of murder of two ladies had taken place.

(ii)        That Tahir Mehmood appellant was the person who first informed the police about the occurrence and on his statement Ex.PJ, FIR Ex.PJ/1 was registered. However subsequently Ghulam Muhammad complainant due to enmity submitted an application Ex.PH before the police for registration of the case against Tahir Mehmood, Muhammad Akram and Sajjad Ali regarding the same incident. Further that the police karwai mentioned on the statement Ex.PJ of Tahir Mehmood, appellant and on the application Ex.PH submitted by Ghulam Muhammad complainant was made by the same Sub Inspector namely Muhammad Sharif.

(iii)       That Ghulam Muhammad complainant was resident of City Haroonabad while the occurrence took place at District Jhang, therefore, his coming to Jhang and his presence there at that time was improbable.

(iv)       That Afsar Ali, husband of Mst. Ferhat deceased reached at the spot after some time of the occurrence but he never came forward as complainant nor he was cited as witness of recovery memos. of dead bodies and blood stained earth which were prepared by the police in his presence.

(v)        That the place of occurrence was situated in a populated area but no person from the locality appeared as witness.

(vi)       That this is an un-witnessed occurrence as no body had seen the accused while committing murder of the ladies.

(vii)      That the prosecution evidence comprised interested witnesses and their statements are highly discrepant and not worthy of reliance.

(viii)     That the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.

(ix)       That motive of the occurrence was not proved by the prosecution from the evidence on record.

(x)        That Afsar Ali, husband of Mst. Ferhat Bibi deceased had not uttered a single word about the motive of the occurrence.

(xi)       That there are contradictions in the statements of Afsar Ali and other prosecution witnesses as Afsar Ali stated that the ornaments and cash were taken away from an iron box whereas the other PWs stated that the same were snatched from Ferhat Bibi deceased by the accused.

(xii)      That the evidence on the record does not justify the conviction of the appellant and in any way the sentence awarded to appellants is very harsh.

(xiii)     That the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version.

(xiv)     That the recoveries of ornaments and crime weapon i.e. dagger were planted against the appellants by the police.

Learned Counsel for the appellants raised a question of law that
whether the second application for registration of case which was submitted by Ghulam Muhammad complainant before the police and the evidence on the basis thereof which he had furnished before the learned trial Court is inadmissible according to the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C.

The learned Counsel for appellant Tahir Mehmood placed reliance on the following case law:--

2005 YLR 954 Muhammad Ahmad alias Danyal Vs. The State

Wherein it was held as under:

"According to Section 162, Cr.P.C, no statement of any person to a police officer in the course of investigation can be used for any purpose except by the accused and for the purpose of contradicting the witness as provided by Article 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. A reference is invited to AIR 1960 SC 391, AIR 1944 FC 38. Furthermore, it can neither be used for corroboration of the prosecution or defence witness or even a Court witness nor for contradicting the defence or a Court witness. A reference is invited to AIR 1959 SC 1012. It is also pointed out that the statement under Section 162, Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used for a limited purpose of contradicting such witness and the statement cannot be used for any other purpose. Reference is invited to PLD 1965 SC 188, PLD 1964 SC 26.

            The second part of the statement of P.W. Alam Sher is in admissible in evidence. The trial Court was not justified to record such inadmissible evidence. It should have not allowed to come on the record. The Court would have saved the time by disallowing such evidence. The Hon. Privy Council in the case of Zaheeruddin v. Emperor reported in AIR 1947 PC 750 observed that when a Magistrate or presiding Judge discovers that the witness has made the use of a statement under Section 162, Cr.P.C. when he was giving evidence at the trial, it is his duty under the said section to discard the evidence of such witness as inadmissible.

In view of above position the second part of the statement of the P.W. Alam Sher is discarded as inadmissible.

2005 MLD 1470 Shaukat Ali Vs. The State

Wherein it has been held as under:--

"A bare perusal of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes it manifest that the intention of the legislature, in framing Section 162 in the manner it did, was to protect the accused against the use of the statements of witnesses, made before the police during the investigation, at the trial, presumably on the assumption that the said statements were not made in circumstances inspiring confidence. Both, the section and the proviso, intended to serve primarily the same purpose, i.e., interest of the accused. The section was conceived in an attempt to find a via media, namely, while it enacts absolute bar against the statement being used for any purpose whatsoever and it enables the accused to rely upon it for limited purpose of contradicting a witness in the manner as provided by Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order by drawing his attention to parts of the statement intended for contradiction. It cannot be used for corroboration of a prosecution or a defence witness or even a Court witness, nor can it be used for contradicting a defence or a Court witness by prosecution. Article 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order is controlled by Section 162, Cr.P.C. and the prohibition contained in Section 162, Cr.P.C. cannot be defeated"

The learned Counsel also relied upon PLD 2007 SC 539 Muhammad Bashir Vs. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt & others and PLD 2005 SC 297 Mst. Anwar Begum Vs. Station House Officer, Police Station Kalri West, Karachi & 12 others on the same point.

In PLD 2007 SC 539 it has been held as under:

"In so saying, we find strength from another aspect of the matter also i.e. the provisions of Section 162, Cr.P.C. which provide that:

"162(1). No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this chapter shall, if reduced into writing, be signed by the person making it, nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, ......... Be used for any purpose ......... at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when the statement was made........"

Any steps taken by a police officer to find out about the correctness or otherwise of the information conveyed to him would obviously entail collection of material in the form of questioning people and the parties etc. As was done by the police in the present case which is evident from the order in question of the learned A.S.J./Ex-officio Justice of the Peace dated 12.12.2005. If such an exercise was permitted to be undertaken before recording an F.I.R. then the F.I.R. reduced into writing thereafter would get hit by the prohibition contained in the said Section 162, Cr.P.C. and any such F.I.R. would become a futility being inadmissible in evidence at the trial."

In PLD 2005 SC 297 it has been held as under:

"Registration of second F.I.R.--Accused mentioned in the first F.I.R. lodged by Manager of deceased were unknown and untraceable--Police refused to record second F.I.R. as per widow's version--High Court in Constitutional petition directed Police to consider widow's version by examining her and her witnesses during investigation--Validity--Widow from the day of incident had been alleging murder of her husband to be managed by his real brothers in league with complainant of first F.I.R. its Investigating Officer and others named accused--Veracity and truthfulness of first F.I.R. had become highly doubtful in such circumstances--Widow was right in asking for registration of another F.I.R. as per her own version--Widow had been moving applications and making representations to high-ups in Police, but all in vain--Discretionary powers under Art. 199 of the Constitution must be exercised by High Court in good faith, fairly justly and reasonably having regard to all relevant circumstances and in accordance with the principles laid down by Superior Courts--Disposal of Constitutional petition on technical grounds without adverting to grievance of widow was not legal--Widow had made out a case for registration of second F.I.R.--Supreme Court accepted appeal with direction to Police to register fresh F.I.R. on basis of widow's version within a week and report its compliance to Officer-in-Charge of Court."

11.  Miss Raisa Sarwat, learned Counsel for appellant Sajid Ali alias Sajjad Ali, in addition to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for appellant Tahir Mehmood, further stated that Sajid Ali alias Sajjad Ali appellant had no relation with the accused or the complainant. He was neither present at the place of occurrence nor he was seen by any one while entering or leaving the house of Afsar Ali, he was made an escaping goat and involved in this case falsely. She further stated that Sajid Ali alias Sajjad Ali had taken plea in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. that he was resident of the same locality and he was not present at home as he alongwith his family members had gone to attend the marriage ceremony. Afsar Ali, husband of Ferhat Bibi deceased, pressurized him to become a witness in this case and on his refusal Afsar Ali involved him in this case. She further stated that Sajid Ali alias Sajjad Ali, appellant had no enmity with the complainant party.

12.  On the other hand, Mr. Seerat Hussain Naqvi, learned Counsel for complainant stated as under:--

(i)         That in murder cases usually no other independent witnesses come forward to appear as witnesses except the relatives.

(ii)        That the prosecution has brought on record sufficient material to connect the appellants with the commission of offence.

(iii)       That although there is no eye-witness of the occurrence but the case was fully proved through circumstantial evidence.

(iv)       That the evidence produced by the prosecution was duly corroborated by the recovery of ornaments and crime weapons i.e. daggers which were recovered on the pointation of the appellants.

(v)        That the medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution evidence.

(vi)       That the motive of the occurrence was fully proved from the evidence available on the record.

(vii)      The learned Counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of both the appeals.

13.  The learned DPG appearing for the State has adopted the arguments of learned Counsel for the complainant. However he further stated that the learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out some minor discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which are not sufficient to discard the prosecution version. The occurrence is fully proved from the facts and circumstances of the case. The MLR has fully proved the injuries sustained by the deceased ladies due to which they died. The learned DPG also supported the impugned judgment stating that the appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. He prayed that both the appeals may be dismissed.

14.  We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.

15.  It is established from the record that complainant Ghulam Muhammad PW.9 alongwith Yar Muhammad PW.12 went to Ahmad Hassan at Burewala and they, all the three, made program to go to Faisalabad via Jhang as the complainant wanted to see his sister Ferhat Bibi, on the way. They reached the house of Ferhat Bibi at 5.00 p.m. and found that Mst. Ferhat Bibi and her maid servant Mst. Hajran Bibi were murdered. The complainant suspected Tahir Mehmood as accused of this occurrence and he made application to the police for registration of FIR. It is not material that the complainant was resident of Haroon Abad while the occurrence took place in District Jhang as Ghulam Muhammad Complainant is real brother of Mst. Ferhat Bibi, it is natural that he on having come to know about the murder of his sister, made efforts to lodge the case. Furthermore the complainant stated about the extra judicial confession made by Tahir Mehmood appellant before him to the effect that on inquiry Tahir Mehmood told that he and his friend Sajid Ali alias Sajjad Ali, armed with daggers, entered the house of Mst. Ferhat Bibi and demanded money from her and on her refusal he snatched ornaments from her and murdered her by giving dagger blows. Mst. Hajran Bibi, maid servant, raised hue and cry, therefore, Sajjad Ali gave daggers blows to Mst. Hajran Bibi resulting into her murder. The appellants had not produced sufficient reasons in rebuttal of extra judicial confession. The statement of the complainant was corroborated by PW.6 Afsar Ali, husband and PW.7 Sana Afsar, daughter of Mst. Ferhat Bibi deceased. Afsar Ali stated that he recorded in his statement before the police that murder of his wife and maid servant was committed by his step brothers Tahir Mehmood and Muhammad Akram accused with the consultation of their mother. Accused Sajid Ali, neighbour and friend of Tahir Mehmood accused was also involved in the said murders. He also stated that the accused had also taken away gold ornaments and cash. The said stolen articles were recovered from the appellants. Sana Afsar, daughter of Mst. Ferhat Bibi deceased stated that three days prior to occurrence, her step uncle Tahir Mehmood and Muhammad Akram at the instance of their mother Mst. Ferozan had taken oath on Holy Quran to finish the family of Mst. Ferhat Bibi as the accused wanted to get transferred her house in their name and for this purpose they had beaten her mother. She further stated that in absence of her father, both the accused used to snatch money from her mother after beating her. PW.12 Yar Muhammad, companion of complainant Ghulam Muhammad also supported the version of the complainant regarding extra judicial confession made by Tahir Mehmood appellant. The medical evidence supported the ocular account of the prosecution witnesses. Recoveries of daggers and stolen ornaments, duly identified, also connected the appellants with the occurrence as the same were made on the disclosure of the appellants. The enmity between the parties was established on the record as Tahir Mehmood appellant himself admitted in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. that there was a dispute of property between him and his step brother Afsar Ali, husband of Mst. Ferhat Bibi. That Tahir Mehmood in his statement also involved Afser Ali in murder of his wife but it may be mentioned here that surprisingly he did not mention this fact while lodging FIR which goes to show that it was nothing but an after thought in a situation when he was named as accused in the complaint of Ghulam Muhammad, moreso that he is playing foul play which ultimately connects him with the occurrence of the offence. The motive of the occurrence has been proved further from the evidence available on the record as the complainant categorically stated in his statement that three months prior to the occurrence, his sister Mst. Ferhat Bibi came to his house for participating in the marriage of her sister and she complained against the conduct of Tahir Mehmood, appellant and his mother and stated that she felt danger of her life at the hands of Tahir Mehmood, appellant.

16.  No doubt it is an un-seen occurrence and there is no claim for having last seen. In such cases appreciation of evidence places more responsibility on the shoulders of everyone concerned to apply deeper and specific diagnosis methods rather than ordinary analysis.

17.  Tahir Mehmood appellant was the person who first informed the police about the occurrence, and the first male member to come to know and see the horrendous scene of occurrence. The natural course demanded that he being the paternal uncle of the two orphan minor girls would console them and see the damage all around, arrange for their necessary security in the circumstances, inform their father, i.e., his brother Afsar Ali, the husband of the deceased Ferhat Bibi, take somebody from the family or from the neighbours and then report to the Police. But absence of all natural aspects in behavior point out towards his cleverness to be the first to get his version recorded as FIR, so that right from the beginning all investigation goes in a different direction, as is evident from his hurried statement Ex.PJ recorded as FIR Ex.PJ/1, Furthermore, Police instead of registering report lodged by Ghulam Muhammad, brother of deceased Ferhat Bibi, as Second FIR, treated it as merely as a complaint, Ex.PH.

18.  Considering probable time of occurrence, appearance of Ghulam Muhammad, complainant, brother of deceased Ferhat Bibi, is neither improbable nor unnatural, keeping in view, present-day means of  communication, even if he would not have been scheduled to visit her sister, as stated by him. Therefore, question mark put on such probability is not sustainable and even otherwise it cannot lend any support to the appellant in the prosecution case itself against him.

19.  On the one hand the learned counsel for the appellant has raised objection to the admissibility of the complaint lodged by brother of the deceased, on the other he feels that her husband Afsar Ali should also have become a complainant. In fact Afsar Ali, husband of the deceased vehemently pursued the prosecution case, as witness and as a person who had suffered the loss and the damage.

20.  Similarly, once the occurrence is claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant as unseen, and as admittedly it is unseen, his observation about non-production of witness from the neighbour, is also not sustainable.

21.  In a murder case where no witness usually comes forward, blood-bound witnesses like daughters and brothers and those closely related, in fact heir like husband, in this case, could all be legally acceptable witnesses, in spite of all their interest in relationship and heirship.

22.  For each pointation of and recovery of weapons of offence, blood stained clothes, cash and gold ornaments, duly identified, from each appellant, there are private witnesses also.

23.  So far Sajid Ali alias Sajjad Ali appellant is concerned, his assertion in his statement under 342 Cr.P.C. that he was falsely involved because he had refused to be a prosecution witness, does not convince in any manner. Appellant Sajid's statement that Afsar Ali, husband of Ferhat Bibi deceased, pressurized him to become a prosecution witness in this case and on his refusal Afsar Ali involved him in this case, is hardly believable as complainant Ghulam Muhammad had nominated him (Sajid) in his complaint, after directly going to Police Station, from the Hospital.

24.  Sajid was not known to the complainant, his name and his role in the occurrence were disclosed to him by Tahir Mehmood accused, at the Hospital. He was nominated immediately in the complaint lodged by the complainant, Ghulam Muhammad on 16-4-2003, i.e., the same day at 6.00 p.m., without any opportunity of any contact with the appellant Sajid or discussion with him, which could prove any suggestion to him to be prosecution witness, and recoveries on his pointation, duly witnessed by private witnesses also, do not lend any credence to his denial of his stated involvement in the offence. His plea of his presence at some other place, at the time of occurrence was left short of proof. In this connection, following need to be considered.

Sajid took the plea that at the time of occurrence he was not present at his house but he had gone to attend the marriage ceremony at some other place and his house was locked. But he could not prove his plea satisfactorily.

Alibi plea of- The burden of proving the plea is on the person who takes up the plea. [PLD 1964 Pesh. 288(FB)].

Alibi: person raising the plea of alibi must discharge the burden by proving it. [1983 SCMR 697].

25.  As regards the question of law about Section 162 Cr.P.C, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for appellant Tahir Mehmood, we are of the view that if there was any wrong treatment of the application which was submitted by Ghulam Muhammad complainant before the police for registration of the case, the same was on the part of the police and not on the part of complainant as the complainant, being only middle-pass, had acted in good faith just to report his version of the occurrence in order to get justice and he stated in his cross-examination that before moving complaint Ex.PH for registration of FIR, he had no knowledge that any FIR of the occurrence had already been registered. In this connection, reliance is placed on PLD 2005 SC 297 Mst. Anwar Begum Vs. Station House Officer, Police Station Kalri West, Karachi & 12 others, which sets a remedy in such cases by registering subsequent information or complaint as Second F.I.R. It was for the police to record the complaint or the information provided by the complainant Ghulam Muhammad to the Police vide Ex.PH as second FIR. The complainant can not be made to suffer for the technical lapses on the part of the Police/Investigation.

26.  There is an inherent bigger danger involved in rejecting outright the subsequent complaint or information reported to the Police in form of complaint and prima facie making it inadmissible as if non-existent to be processed in evidence, even for the limited purpose and in the prescribed manner, provided under Section 162 Cr.P.C. Such outright rejection or total inadmissibility may favour the criminal tactics of offenders who can afford faster means to get their false of the honourable apex Court (PLD 2005 SC 297) a safeguard has been set in the mechanism for recording such subsequent complaint or report as second FIR, in order to ensure judicious dispensation in such cases.

27.  Therefore, the point raised by learned Counsel for the appellants as to whether the second application for registration, as submitted by Ghulam Muhammad, complainant, brother of deceased Ferhat Bibi, before the police and the evidence on the basis thereof which he had furnished before the learned trial Court is inadmissible according to the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C, needs proper consideration and analysis.

28.  Ghulam Muhammad, complainant, real brother of deceased Ferhat Bibi, as soon as he reached the place of occurrence at 5.00 pm on 16-4-2003, and then came to know about the facts that appellants were the murderers/offenders in this crime/case, at the Hospital, he went to Police Station at 6.00 pm, the same day (16-4-2003) to lodge his report, therefore it was not a "statement made by" the Complainant "to a police-officer in the course of an investigation." Investigation had yet to start, on his report (treating it as second FIR, as also laid down in PLD 2005 SC 297). It was wrongly treated by Police as a statement recorded during investigation under Section 162 Cr.P.C, even if one FIR No. 164 was lodged by Tahir Mehmood accused, only about 3 hours earlier, the same day (16-4-2003) which was not known to Ghulam Muhammad, complainant:

Anyway, when such a statement is recorded, Section 162 Cr.P.C, provides that when such witness is called for "the Court shall on the request of the accused, refer to such writing and direct that the accused be furnished with a copy thereof, in order that any part of such statement, if duly proved, may be used to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872. When any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination."

Section 162 Cr.P.C. provides "further that, if the Court is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in public interests, it shall record such opinion (but not the reasons therefor) and shall exclude such part from the copy of the statement furnished to the accused.

"(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of Section 32, clause (1), of the Evidence Act, 1872 [or to affect the provisions of Section 27 of that Act.]"

29.  Even from plain reading of above provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. shows that the statement recorded under this section is not non-existent. It is very much extant and useable, but for the specified purpose and under specific procedure, as laid down. When it is "used in the re-examination of such witness" even "for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination," it is found to be very much useful in bringing the truth of the matter for purpose of dispensation of justice.

30.  In this connection, following PLD 2005 SC 297 Mst. Anwar Begum Vs. Station House Officer, Police Station Kalri West, Karachi and 12 others is important.

31.  From the facts and reasons mentioned above, we are satisfied that the occurrence in the instant case has taken place in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. The prosecution has successfully proved its case by producing confirmatory evidence in this regard. In this case there is no room for doubt. Even otherwise the learned Counsel for the appellants have not succeeded to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment.

32.  Resultantly both the appeals i.e. Cr. Appeal No. 232/L/2005 and Jail Cr. Appeal No. 118/I/2007 are dismissed and the conviction and sentences awarded to appellants Tahir Mehmood and Sajid Ali alias Sajjad Ali by the learned trial Court under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life each, and under Section 392 PPC for four years R.I. each with fine of Rs. 5000/- each or in default thereof to further undergo two months S.I. each are maintained. The sentence of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. awarded to both the appellants is also upheld. Both the sentences shall run concurrently with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.

33.  These are reasons of our short order dated 15.9.2011.

(A.S.)   Appeals dismissed

No comments:

Post a Comment

Contact Lawyers Network

If you have any queries related with this post you can contact at lawyergolra@gmail.com

Regards,
Salman Yousaf Khan
CEO
Lawyers Network
+92-333-5339880