 |
| Motive in 302 | High Court upheld punishment even motive was not proved. |
عدالت نے ملزم کی سزا کو برقرار رکھتے ہوئے یہ فیصلہ دیا کہ شواہد، بشمول فوری ایف آئی آر، عینی گواہان کی گواہی، اور میڈیکل رپورٹ، ملزم کی مجرمانہ کارروائی کو ثابت کرنے کے لیے کافی ہیں، اور جرم کی محرک کے بغیر بھی اس کی سزا کو برقرار رکھا۔
یہ مقدمہ لاہور میں، جسٹس انوار الحق پنن کی عدالت میں زیر سماعت تھا، جس میں اپیل نمبر 14637 اور کرمنل ریوژن نمبر 16786 کی سماعت 10 مئی 2024 کو ہوئی۔ مقدمہ میں ملزم لیاقت علی عرف جاجی اور دوسرے کے خلاف فرد جرم عائد کی گئی تھی۔
کیس کے اہم نکات:
1. سزا اور مقدمہ:
ملزم لیاقت علی عرف جاجی کو 17 فروری 2021 کو سزائے عمر قید اور 2 لاکھ روپے جرمانہ کی سزا دی گئی، جو کہ مقتول کے قانونی وارثین کو ادا کرنا تھا۔
2. فرد جرم:
مقدمہ کے مطابق، ملزم نے 13 مئی 2014 کو مقتول محمد رضوان کو پستول سے گولیاں مار کر قتل کیا۔ وقوعہ کے وقت ملزم نے مقتول کو گولی ماری اور جائے وقوعہ سے فرار ہو گیا۔
3. شواہد:
وقوعہ کی رپورٹ فوراً پولیس کو دی گئی، اور گواہان کی عینی شہادتیں ملزم کے خلاف مضبوط تھیں۔ میڈیکل رپورٹ اور عینی گواہان کی شہادتیں جرم کے حق میں تھیں۔
4. محرک:
مقدمے میں محرک کی عدم موجودگی کے باوجود، عدالت نے عینی گواہان اور میڈیکل شواہد کی بنیاد پر ملزم کو مجرم قرار دیا۔
5. تجویز:
مدعی کی طرف سے ملزم کی سزا بڑھانے کی درخواست پر بھی غور کیا گیا، لیکن عدالت نے موجودہ سزا برقرار رکھی۔
عدالتی فیصلہ:
عدالت نے مقدمے میں ملزم کی سزا کی توثیق کرتے ہوئے اپیل اور ریوژن کی درخواستوں کو مسترد کر دیا۔
یہ فیصلے مقدمہ کی نوعیت اور شواہد کی بنیاد پر عدالت کی طرف سے دی گئی تفصیلی توجیہات کو بیان کرتے ہیں۔
2024 Y L R 1949
[Lahore]
Before Anwaarul Haq Pannun, J
Liaquat Ali alias Jajji and another---Appellants
Versus
The State and others---Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 14637 and Criminal Revision No. 16786 of 2021, heard on 10th May, 2024.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 109---Qatl-i-amd, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Promptly lodged FIR---No question of false implication---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Ocular account had been furnished by complainant and another witness---Admittedly, complainant was not an eye--witness of the alleged occurrence---Occurrence took place at 10.00 a.m. on 13.05.2014---Matter was reported to the police on the same day at 10.15 a.m. with promptitude---Accused being the sole accused had specifically been nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with described specific role---Complainant was brother and witness was uncle of the deceased---Complainant was not an eye-witness of the occurrence, however, he on receiving information of occurrence form witnesses, reached at the place of occurrence and found his brother lying in an injured condition, who shifted the injured under the police escort to hospital for his medical examination---Claim of eye-witness regarding his presence at the relevant time at place of occurrence in bazar/butcher's market could not be shattered by the defence---Moreover, it was a daylight occurrence and the parties were already known to each-other, therefore, no question of misidentification or substitution of the accused arose---It was not believable that the witnesses by leaving the actual murderer would falsely implicat the accused---Ocular account furnished by eye-witnesswas fully corroborated with medical evidence---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 109---Qatl-i-amd, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence on the pointation of accused---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Record showed that a weapon of offence was recovered allegedly on pointing out of the accused from a room of his house---Since the accused remained fugitive from law for about three years, therefore, recovery of weapon of offence on his pointing out vide recovery memo was irrelevant and inconsequential---However, the ocular account had been established---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.
(c) Criminal trial---
----Motive---Scope---If motive part of the prosecution case is not proved and hence excluded from consideration, the accused can still be convicted in presence of sufficient evidence in the form of ocular account duly supported by the medical evidence beyond any shadow of doubt.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 109---Qatl-i-amd, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Related witnesses, evidence of---Reliance---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Allegedly the eye-witness was close relative of deceased---Merely on account of relationship of the witnesses with the deceased, their evidence could not be discarded in the absence of any inconsistency or inherent infirmity in their depositions---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.
Khizar Hayat v. The State 2011 SCMR 429 rel.
Aasim Sohaib and Muhammad Irfan Malik for Appellant.
Fakhar Abbas, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Alam ASI for the State.
Kazim Ali Malik for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 10th May, 2024.
Judgment
Anwaarul Haq Pannun, J.---This single judgment shall decide, the above noted, Criminal Appeal, challenging his conviction and sentence filed by the appellant Liaquat Ali alias Jajji, and Revision Petition filed by complainant Muhammad Irfan Haider for enhancement of sentence of the appellant, as both have arisen out of judgment dated 17.02.2021, passed on conclusion of trial in a criminal case, bearing FIR No.193, dated 13.05.2014, offence under Sections 302/109, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Sahiwal, District Sargodha by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, District Sargodha. Needless to reiterate that appellant was sent up to face trial in aforementioned case, according to prosecution, on 13.05.2014, at about 10.00 a.m. when Muhammad Rizwan Haider, the brother of the complainant reached at butcher's market (Mandi Qasaban), Sahiwal, suddenly, the appellant while armed with pistol .30 bore emerged, raised lalkara, made fire shots with his pistol, which hit on left side of his flank, and on left side of his hip, who upon receiving fire-shots fell down. Upon hearing firing and noise, Khalid Mehrnood and Asghar Ali who were passing by there by chance, witnessed the alleged occurrence and upon seeing them, the appellant while brandishing his pistol, fled away. The motive behind the occurrence was that upon forbidding the accused/appellant by his brother from doing the narcotic business in his Mohallah, exchange of abuses had taken place between them. It had further been alleged that the occurrence had taken place on the abetment of Muhammad Nawaz alias Bhappa and Noman alias Nomi. The FIR was lodged under Sections 324/109, P.P.C., however, the then injured Rizwan Haider died on 15.05.2014 at DHQ Hospital Sargodha, thereupon the offence under Section 302, P.P.C. was added.
2. The prosecution at trial examined as many as thirteen (PW-1 to PW-13) prosecution witnesses besides tendering certain documents including he reports of PFSA (Exh:PA to Exh:PT) to prove its charge. In his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C, the appellant professed his innocence while refuting the prosecution's evidence, stating his false involvement in the case. The appellant did not opt to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. or to produce evidence in his defense. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court, vide its judgriient dated 17.02.2021, convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-
Under Section 302(b), P.P.C.
Sentenced to life imprisonment along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- payable to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C and in default thereof to further undergo SI for six months. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C is extended to the convict.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. As it is evident from above facts that the prosecution's case mainly consists of ocular account, medical evidence, motive and a recovery of pistol allegedly recovered on pointing out of the appellant vide recovery memo. (Exh:PN). The ocular account has been furnished by Muhammad Irfan Haider, complainant (PW-7) i.e. the brother of the deceased Muhammad Rizwan and Muhammad Asghar (PW-10). Admittedly, Muhammad Irfan Haider, complainant (PW-7) is not an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. The occurrence took place at 10.00 a.m. on 13.05.2014. The matter was reported to the police on the same day at 10.15 a.m. vide rapt No.04 i.e. with promptitude. The appellant being the sole accused has specifically been nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with above described specific role. Muhammad Rizwan Haider, brother of the complainant died on 15.05.2024 at DHQ Hospital Sargodha. Dr. Sohail Asghar, Medical Officer (PW-2) medically examined the deceased in an injured condition who was brought by Aurangzeb, a cousin of the injured and found the following injuries on his person:-
i) A firearm wound of entry measuring 1 x 1 cm on the left side of abdomen 8 cm lateral to the umbilicus with inverted margin.
For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp
Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.
Comments
Post a Comment