Qatl-i-amd, common intention

Citation Name : 2019 PCrLJ 986 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ABDUL REHMAN alias MANNI
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, modification of---Accused were charged for committing murder of nephew of complainant---Motive of the occurrence was that few days prior to the incident hot words were exchanged between the complainant and accused and due to that grudge, all the accused in connivance with each other had committed the murder---Ocular account, in the present case, consisted of the statements of two witnesses including complainant---Claim of both the prosecution witnesses of the ocular account though was that the accused while armed with pistol along with his accomplices had reached there and in pursuance of lalkara raised by his co-accused, the accused made successive fire shots out of which one fire shot hit the deceased---defence version was that the accused was present in a vacant/barren plot, who did not make fire shot while aiming any person rather one of the aerial fire shot made by him after hitting a hard surface of the wall diverted and resulted into injury at the forehead of the deceased---During the course of investigation, the plea advanced by the accused was found correct---Investigating Officer had stated that it was an accidental occurrence without any intention or pre-meditation of the accused---Record showed that on the application of complainant party, investigation was changed and entrusted to another Investigating Officer, who also opined that the occurrence was result of inadvertent aerial firing---Besides the findings given during the course of successive investigations, it had come on record that soon after the occurrence, father of the accused had accompanied the complainant party while shifting deceased, then injured, to hospital for his medical treatment---Although the presence of both the prosecution witnesses of ocular account at the place of occurrence at the relevant time could not be shattered during the course of trial nor it could be denied that the injury on the person of deceased was result of fire shot made by the accused, however, facts and circumstances of the case showed that the witnesses being close relatives inter se, as well as, the deceased had advanced an exaggerated story about the mode and manner of occurrence---Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of deceased, had supplemented the stamp of injury at the person of deceased---Statement of the Medical Officer had reflected that while conducting post-mortem examination, he recovered foreign body (bullet), which was found de-shaped/deformed---During the course of cross-examination, the Medical Officer had admitted that the bullet became deformed if it hit harder place than itself ---Fact led to the conclusion that the fire shot on the person of deceased did not hit him directly rather it diverted to him after hitting some harder place---Facts and circumstances of the case showed that the version narrated by the prosecution witnesses was not the gospel truth while plea advanced by the accused, which lent support from the successive investigations and the statement of the Medical Officer was more plausible---Fact that the accused did not intend to commit murder of the deceased rather as opined during the course of successive investigations, the incident was result of aerial firing could not be denied---Statement of the Medical Officer that the bullet recovered from the dead body was de-shaped, therefore, the unlawful act committed by the accused, which resulted into death of deceased fell within the ambit of qatl-bis-sabab as enshrined in S. 321, P.P.C. punishable under S. 322, P.P.C.---Consequently, conviction and sentences of the accused recorded under S. 302(b), P.P.C., were set aside, and appellant was convicted under S. 323, P.P.C. and sentenced to pay diyat---Appeal was dismissed with said modification.

Citation Name : 2019 YLRN 22 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AMIR HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : State
S. 365---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(e)---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom amount, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---First Information Report unambiguously suggested that incident was reported same day through a direct approach at the Police Station; none was arrayed by name initially---Complainant, seemingly a well-off entrepreneur joined by his family members, could not be conceivably expected to come up with an ominous and fake plea of abduction involving his son aged just 7 years---Star witness/alleged abductee, though, of an impressionable age, intelligently responded to court queries and thus, was rightly admitted in the witness box pointing, unmistakably, his accusing finger upon accused persons---Abductee, who stayed in captivity with accused persons till his release, had every opportunity to identify his captors---In absence of any material, suggestive of contra possibility, his evidence could not be brushed aside, merely on the hypothesis of being under parental influence---Abductee was found confidence inspiring against his tormentors---Usual lapse on the part of the Police would not by itself diminish evidentiary value of the statements of prosecution witnesses, when taken in the overall framework of prosecution case---Complainant, in his examination-in-chief, asserted to identify accused person by their names and faces as he had earlier seen them at their work place before they came across him after abduction of his son; defence had opted not to contest that position---Recovered amount with previous signatures by itself ruled out the possibility of a mock exercise designed to revenge a trivial altercation---No space was to entertain any hypothesis of accused person's innocence---Accused persons having rightly been convicted and sentenced, no interference was called for, except for a direction for sentences to run concurrently.