Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL AZIZ AND 5 Others VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Cheema, Saleem Mazhar Title: ABDUL AZIZ AND 5 Others vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 376 and Murder Reference No. 169 of 1971 Date of Judgment:1973-09-12 Reported As: 1973 P Cr. L J 990 Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.-The six appellants, namely. Abdul Aziz alias Jeeja, his two sons Shafiq alias Fiqu mentioned as Rafiq in the first information report and Abdul Qayyum alias Quma, Mughals by caste, and Butchers by profession, Muhammad Ayub, Khuda Bakhsh alias Bular and Taj Din, Ghauris by caste, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, for the double murder of Elahi Bakhsh Gujjar and his cousin Inayat allegedly committed by them, on the 9th of January 1969, at about 3-45 p. m., in the Sheep and Goat Market (Bakkar Mandi), one mile from Police Station Nawankot, Lahore. All the six accused were convicted under section 148, P. P. C. With an award of one year's rigorous imprisonment each: They were also convicted under section 302 read with section 149, P. P. C. Abdul Qayyum alias Quma and Taj Din were each awarded the sentence of death and a fine of Rs.2,000 each on each count, while the others were sentenced to transportation for life each and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each on two counts. Fifty per cent. Of the fine, if realized, was directed to be awarded as compensation to the heirs of the two deceased. They have challenged their convictions and sentences through Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 1971, and the case of Abdul Qayyum alias Quma and Taj Din, the two condemned prisoners, has also been referred to us under section 374, Cr. P. C. For confirmation of the sentences of death. In addition to this, Muhammad Hanif, an eye-witness in the case and brother, of Elahi Bakhsh deceased has also filed a private revision for enhancement of the sentences of transportation for life awarded to four of the appellants to those of death. It was trot admitted to a regular hearing but was directed to be heard along with the connected case. This Judgment will dispose of all the three cases, viz. The murder reference, the appeal and the revision petition.
---
## Page 2
2. The facts as revealed in the initial report lodged by Nawab Din P. W. 3, at Police Station Nawankot, at 4-15 p. m., and marked as C. W. 13/A, briefly, are that Nawab Din, complainant, and his deceased uncle Elahi Bakhsh, had commission agents' business in the Bakkar Mandi, Lahore where Abdul Aziz and his sons were also engaged in the same trade. About six months prior to the occurrence, Jagga, the younger brother of Nawab Din, complainant, had died in a Police encounter. Almost simultaneously with this Nawab Din, complainant, and his uncle Elahi Bakhsh deceased, on conviction under the Control of Goondas Ordinance, were externed from Lahore and confined within the jurisdiction of Police Station Raiwind: Consequently, s they were constrained to give up their business. On the morning of the 19th of January 1969, both of them visited Qila Lachman Singh with the permission of the Station House Officer of Police Station Raiwind. At about 10/11 a. m. They sent their driver Faqir Muhammad P. W. 4. To collect from Abdul Aziz alias Jeeja, appellant some amount which he owed them in connection with their business. The appellant allegedly promised to make payment towards evening by which time he would be able to arrange collection. Accordingly, Nawab Din complainant, his son Inayat deceased, his nephews Hanif P. W. And Elahi Bakhsh deceased visited the Bakkar Mandi in their car, which was driven by Faqir Muhammad P. W. 4. Getting down from the car, on the Bund Road shown in the site plan Exh. C. W. 14 /B, the two deceased went up to Abdul Aziz alias Jeeja, appellant followed by Nawab Din and Hanif P. Ws. On seeing them Abdul Aziz alias Jeeja exhorted his companions to kill them. On this, all the six appellants, of whom Shafiq alias Fiqu and Ayub were armed with rifles; Khuda Bakhsh alias Bullar and Taj Din with pistols, and Abdul Qayyum alias Quma with a gun attacked the complainant party. Elahi Bakhsh and Inayat died at the spot as a result of the, firearm injuries. Nawab Din, Hanif and Faqir Muhammad P. Ws., however, succeeded in making good their escape. Nawab Din promptly lodged the report Exh. C. W. 13/A at the Police Station Nawankot at 4-15 p. m. Within half an hour of the occurrence. 3. Having recorded the statement Exh. P. W. La/A of Nawab P. W. 3 of which the Exh. C. W. 13/A is rather misleading. Sub---Inspector Sultan Anwar C. W. 17 went to the spot and prepared the injury statements Exh. C.W. 13/A and Exh. C.W. 13/D of Elahi Bakhsh and Inayat as also their inquest reports Exh. C. W. 13/C and Exh. C. W. 13/E respectively. He sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination under the escort of F. C. Miran Bakhsh C. W. 4. He secured from the spot gun Exh. P. 1 vide memo. Exh. P. E. He also picked up from the spot revolver Exh. P. 2, five empty cartridges Exh. P. 3/1-5, blood-stained earth from two places where the two deceased lay dead, two empty cartridges Exh.P. 4/1-2, one blue bag Exh. P. 6. Containing five live cartridges and a sign board of Pepsi Kola Exh. P. 5 which were all taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. F. It may be mentioned in this context that from a perusal of the original memo. It appears that the entry regarding the board Exh. P. 5 was inserted subsequently as alleged by the counsel for the complainant. It was not till the 23rd of January 1969 that Taj Din appellant while in custody, led to the recovery of his licensed pistol Exh. P. 8, along with the licence Exh. P. G. From his residential house which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. G/1. The investigation was later entrusted to Sub-Inspector Javed Akhtar Bajwa C. W. 18. He arrested Shafiq appellant on the 3rd of February 1969. In support of their plea of alibi, Muhammad Ayub produced before him, medical certificate Exh. C. W. 17, dated 7th February 1969 pur--porting to have been issued by Dr. A. Rehman Chaudhari. Khuda Bakhsh produced before him a photostat copy of nikahnama Exh. C. W. 17/B relating to the marriage of one Barkat Ali of Lyallpur with Mst. Shahnaz Begum of Lahore on the 24th of December 1968. Abdul Qayyum produced a copy of nikahnama Exh. C. W. 17/C relating to his own marriage with Mst. Bilquees on the 30th of December 1968, invitation card Exh. C. W. 17/D purporting to have been issued by Abdul Aaiz relating to the marriage of Abdul Qayyum; as per schedule the marriage and volima ceremonies were to be held on the 6th and 7th of January 1569 respectively. Mehar Din also produced before him photostat copies of commendation certificates C. W. 17/17 granted to
---
## Page 3
Muhammad Ayub and C. W. 17/G to Taj Din appellant. The Sub-Inspector also got prepared statements of account of Elahi Bakhsh deceased Exh. P. B./1 and Exh. P.B/2 by Munshi Ilam Din P. W. 5, who had worked as Munshi for the deceased in the Sheep and Goat Market for four or five years and maintained their accounts. According to the statement of account prepared by Ilam Din in his own band, on the 3rd of May 1968, Elahi Bakhsh had to recover a sum of Rs. 37,137 from the customers and a sum of Rs. 2,429 was due to him from Ayub accused. On the same day, the position of his account with Chaudhari Jeeja was that the latter owed to Elahi Bakhsh deceased a sum of Rs. 2,162. Taking a somersault he, however, hastened to add that Ch. Jeeja was not Jeeja, one of the accused in this case. Mr. Javed Akhtar Bajwa stated that in the course of investi--gation as many as 332 persons were examined, including the nine C. Ws. Accepting the plea of alibi of the other accused and conceding the exercise of the right of private defence in favour of Taj Din and Shafiq appellants he challaned them under sec--tion 304, P. P. C. Post-mortem examination of the dead body of Elahi Bakhsh was conducted by Dr. Nusrat Ullah P. W. 1 on the 10th of January 1969 at 2 p m. It was a body of a young man of 32 years of strong built. The body was soiled with blood. A woollen shirt, a cotton vest and a shalwar on the person of the deceased were blood-stained and perforated at various places. Vide post-mortem examination report Exh.P.C the doctor found the following injuries:-- (1) Multiple perforations (12) each measuring 1/8'x 1/8" an area, 3' x 2', front of abdomen at umbilical region. Pellets had perforated the abdominal wall. Peritonium, small intestines at 34 places right kindly at its upper lobe, stomach at two places. Six pellets had made their exit from rightfank. Rest of the pellets were present in small intestine and muscles of the back. Abdominal cavity contained three hundred C. C. Of blood and chyle. (2) A lacerated wound, 1' x 1/2' with multiple perforations along its periphery right thigh upper part. Scrotum and bouth the testies were lacerated. Lower one/third of the scrotum was missing. Paper corks (wad) and other contents of the cartridges were present deep in the wound. Right femur was broken at its upper one/third. Muscles were lacerated and pellets had made 17 exit wounds at posterior aspect of the thigh in the middle. (3) A lacerated wound 1' x 1/2' with multiple perforations along its periphery right upper arm medical aspect upper one/third. Muscles were lacerated. Right humerus was broken in -the middle. Thirteen pellets had made their exit at the posterior aspect of upper arm from an area, 3' x 2'. Four pellets were present in the muscles. Two pellets had entered the chest from its lateral aspect. Both the pellets had perforated the chest wall, pleura, right lung and aorta. Right pleural cavity contained 1400 C. C. Of blood. Pellets were lying in right pleural cavity. (4) Firearm wound of entry, 1--' x 1'. Left side of chest at posterior axillary line. The edges were charred and inverted. The pellets made their wound of exit 3' posterior to wound of entry in an area, 2' x 2'. (5) Firearm wound of entry of right pellets right leg lateral aspect upper part. Seven wounds of exit were present at the posterior aspect. Muscles were lacerated. Bones were intact. (6) Firearm injury 1/8' X 1/8' left shoulder. The pellets had broken the scapula and was lying on the muscles of the neck. (7) A lacerated wound, 1' x 1/8' x skin deep right cheek. Internal examination, revealed presence of two ounces of semi-solid food in the stomach. Liver was perforated at two places. Bladder was empty. Death, in the opinion of the doctor, was on account of cardio-respiratory failure due to haemorrhage and shock caused by injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries Nos. 4 and 6 were grievous while No. 7 was simple. Death, had occurred within a few minutes of the
---
## Page 4
receipt of the injuries. Time between death and post-mortem examination was about 21 hours. The doctor extracted some pellets and a wad and handed them over to the police. On the same day, at 3 p.m. The same doctor performed autopsy on the dead body of Inayat deceased. It was the body of a young man of 25 years of average built. The deceased was wearing a dhoti a shirt and bore perforation and stains of blood. Vide report Exh. P. D. The doctor found the following injuries:--- (1) Firearm wound of entry r fight deltoid region and aspect, 3/4'x 1/4'. Edges were lacerated and inverted. The bullet had pierced the muscles of deltoid region out axillary wall, muscles of chest, fifth intercostal space pleura, right lung aorta at the base left lung and made its wound of exit through third intercostal space and anterior axillary line. The wound was 1/4' x 1/4'. (2) Fire-arm wound of entry, 1/2' x 1/4' left side in front and lower part of chest. Cartilages of fifth and sixth ribs on left side were broken, left side pleura was ruptured. Muscles were ruptured. The bullets had made its exit from leis mid-axillary line, 2" below the axilla. Wound of exit was 1/4' x 1/4'. Stomach contained four ounces of semi-digested food. Bladder was empty. Death, in the opinion of the doctor, had occurred due to haemorrhage and shock on account of injury No. 1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 2 was grievous and caused by a fire-arm. Death had occurred within a few minutes of the receipt of injuries. Time between death and' post-mortem was 21 hours. In answer to a Court question, the, doctor positively excluded the use of pistol, revolver or rifle, in the case of Elahi Bakhsh. Regarding Inayat he opined that the two injuries on his person were caused by a pistol and not by a rifle. According to him, injuries Nos. 4 and 6 of Elahi Bakhsh were most probably the result of one shot. On the 11th of January 1969 'Taj Din appellant presented an application to D. S. P. Zulfiqar Alt who supervised the investiga--tion on the basis of which a cross-case under section 307, P. P. C. Was registered the same day against Hanif P: W. 2, Nawab Din P. W. 3 and Faqir Muhammad P. W. 4, who were challaned by Mr. Javed Akhtar Bajwa on the 6th of March 1969. On the 13th of January 1969, an application C. W. 15-A was addressed to the Minister for Interior Government of West Pakistan, by four persons namely, Mehar Din', Saleh Muhammad, Fazal Hussain and Barkat Ali. Mehar Din described himself as President Union; Bakkar Mandi, Saleh Muhammad as Secretary, Bakkar Mandi Federation, allegation in substance that the two deceased and the P. Ws. Had come armed in a car and opened fire on Taj Din who fired at Inayat deceased in self-defence killing him at the spot and that Shafiq picked up the gun of Inayat in order to save Taj Din fired at Elahia who was also killed. On the 10th of February 1969, Criminal Misc. No. 793 of 1969 was moved by Muhammad Hanif P. W. 2 seeking transfer of the investigation of the case. This petition was dismissed by M. Jamil Asghar, J. Vide his Lord--ship's order dated the 19th May 1969. Three days later, on the 22nd of May 1969.,Muhatiimad Hanif filed complaint Exh. C. W. 2/A against all the six accused originally mentioned by Nawab, wherein by and large the version of the occurrence as revealed in the police report Exh. C. W. 13/A was reiterated. Direct allega--tions of partisanship were levelled against Mian Sultan Anwar Sub-inspector on the grounds firstly that Mian Sultan Anwar Sub---Inspector had in conspiracy with the accused persons manoeuvred to send for Elahi Bakhsh deceased and Nawab Din complainant on the pretext of the collection of the amount due to them from the commission agents of Bakkar Mandi. He had allegedly sent a message to them through their driver Faqir Muhammad P. W. Secondly that despite the registration of the case under section 302 of the 'Pakistan Penal Code for the double murder of Elahi Bakhsh and Inayat he submitted the challan only under section 304, P. P. C. Add that too against Taj Din and Shafiq appellants placing the four accused in column No. 2. Thirdly, that on the statement of Taj Din appellant he had registered a cross-case against Hanif, Nawab and Faqir Muhammad under section 307, P. P. C. Fourthly, that he submitted the two challans in Court notwithstanding the fact that a stay order was issued by the High Court in Cr. M. No. 793 of 1969 filed by Hanif for the transfer of the investigation.
---
## Page 5
From the foregoing narrative, it would thus appear that there were two conflicting versions of the same occurrence, one based on the police investigation which found four of the accused as innocent and challaned only Taj Din and Shafiq appellants and that too under section 304, P. P. C. For having exercised in the exercise of the right of private defence, and the other based on the initial report lodged by Nawab P. W. Reiterated and supple--mented by the complaint filed by Muhammad Hanif. Adopting the procedure laid down in Nur Elahi v. The State (PLD 1966 SC 708), the learned trial Judge proceeded to examine, in the first instance the witnesses in the complaint case as P. Ws. And then examined the witnesses in support of the police case as C. Ws. It appears that during inquiry, two sets of the accused, namely, the three Mughals and the three Ghauris did not pull together and tried to shift the responsibility on one another. Taj Din stated that Qayyum, Shafiq, and Abdul Aziz had killed both the' deceased. 'At the trial however he went back on it and stated that Nawab, Hanif and Budha used to meet him in the jail and it was at their instance that he had tried to shift the responsi--bility. Denying his presence at the spot Khuda. Bakhsh alias Buljar raised'a plea of alibi and attributed his false implication to his relationship that he was a brother of Taj Din and maternal uncle of Ayub accused both of whom had appeared as police witnesses in the magisterial inquiry held regarding the death of Jagga brother of Nawab P. W. In a police encounter. Likewise" Ayub Ghauri raised a plea of alibi on the ground of illness and attri-- buted his false implication for having appeared as a, witness 'in the judicial inquiry, regarding the alleged death of Jagga in a police encounter; which offended the Gujjar party. Abdul Qayyum also raised a plea of alibi and stated that having been married only two days before, the occurrence at the relevant time he was present in the house of his in-laws in Taxali Gate, Lahore, but he added that his father Abdul Aziz and his brother Shafiq were also with him. He alleged that the Gujjar party demanded Jagga tax from him and their relations which they refused to pay and for that reason they incurred the displeasure of the Gujjars party. Shafiq alias Fiqu took an inconsistent position during inquiry. Before the committing Magistrate, he denied his presence at the relevant time and stated that he had gone to Lahore Cantonment in connection with his contract to make supplies to the Army. At the trial, however, it was alleged by him that the Gujjar party wanted to extort Jagga tax from him and other commission agents of Bakkar Mandi which they refused to pay and that he also dissuaded the other arhtis not to pay the Jagga tax to the Gujjar party who became inimical to him. He produced a copy of a complaint Exh. D. F. Filed by him in the Court of the A. D. M., Lahore, on the 19th of March 1964, against Abdul Qayyum, and Shafiq, Siddique sons of Aziz alias Jeeja and Mushtaq son of Khuda Bakhsh under section 307/34, P. P. C. As also Exh. D. G., a copy of the order passed by the A. D. M. In the earlier complaint under section 253, Cr. P. C. The last accused to be examined was Abdul Aziz alias Jeeja who also denied his presence at the spot and stated that he had gone to Taxali Gate to the house of the in-laws of his son Abdul Qayyum for bringing his muklawa. They examined no witness in defence. Having considered the evidence led in support of the com--plaint-version and that of the police, the learned trial Judge accepted the former in toto and convicted and punished the accused as detailed earlier. It would not be out of place to reproduce the relevant portion contained in the judgment which reads as follows:---- "42. According to Dr. Nusrat Ullah, Deputy Surgeon Medico-legal, West Pakistan, Lahore, P. W. 1, the injuries on the person of Elahi Bakhsh deceased were caused by gun shots and those on the person of Inayat deceased by a pistol. Abdul Qayyum accused was armed with a gun. Taj Din accused did not deny his presence at the place of the occurrence. Even Mehar Din C. W. 15 and Muhammad Saleh C. W. 16 stated that he fired his pistol and hit Inayat. In other words, the death of Elahi Bakhsh was caused by tire shots fired by Abdul Qayyum accused while Inayat was killed by the shots fired by Taj Din accused. The medical evidence does not show that any of the deceased suffered any injury from a rifle. But that does not mean that Muhammad Ayyub, Muhammad Shafiq and Khuda
---
## Page 6
Bakhsh accused did not take part in the occurrence. The three eye-witnesses named above established that they also opened fire from their respective weapons. It is just possible that they missed their targets. To Jeeja the role of raising a lalkara and commencing the attack is ascribed by the com--plainant. In these circumstances, Muhammad Ayub, Khuda Bakhsh, Muhammad Shafiq and Abdul Aziz are equally responsible for the deaths of Elahi Bakhsh and Inayat. But as the deaths were not actually caused by them, they may not be awarded the same sentences as are going to be awarded to Abdul Qayyum and Taj Din accused." Learned counsel for the appellants raised the following con--tentions before us: (1) That the first informant Nawab and the complainant Hanif P. W. 2 bad given materially discrepant versions of the same occurrence; (2) That the complaint, which ultimately formed the basis of conviction of the appellants was not filed by Hanif till the 22nd of May 1969, i.e., more than four months after the occurrence without satisfactory explanation of the inordinate delay. (3) That even otherwise the version in the complaint contained some basic and inherent falsities which were fatal to the case. (4) That although the occurrence had taken place in broad daylight in the most populous part of the city, namely; the Sheep and the Goat Market, the complainant party could not produce a single disinterested witness in support of their ver--sion sought to be established by the interested and tainted testimony of three hostile witnesses namely, Hanif P., W. 2, Nawab P. W. 3 and Faqir Muhammad P. W. 4. (5) That even otherwise the version given by Nawab in the initial report and later sought to be elaborated by the com--plaint filed by Hanif is not supported by medical evidence and rather comes into direct conflict with it. (6) That the learned trial Judge erred in ignoring the police version which had finally emerged as a result of the examination of 332 persons who were altogether neutral and disinterested. (7) That in any case, the possibility of false implication of some of the accused could not be ruled out for the reasons that the two sets of accused belonged to different families and groups who were not pulling together as clearly indicated by their statements wherein the Ghauris tried to shift the responsibility on the Mughal Qasabs. Although the revision filed by Muhammad, Hanif had not been admitted to a regular hearing and Khawaja Sultan Ahmad, learned counsel for the complainant had, strictly speaking, no locus standi to take the floor yet having regard to the fact that he had been associated with the case at the earlier stages we consider--ed it expedient in the interest of justice to hear on the request of the State counsel despite an objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. He contended before us:---- (1) That since the conduct of Mr.Sultan Anwar Sub-Inspector was also under inquiry held in connection with the death of Jagga in a police encounter he was inimical to the complainant party and having completely identified himself with the accused had not only conspired with them to have the two deceased murdered but also spoiled the murder case. (2) That the presence of Hanif, Nawab and Faqir Muhammad P. Ws. At the spot was admitted by the accused party as indicated by the registration of a cross-case under sections 307, P. P.C. Against them on the statement of Taj Din appellant. (3) That it being a case of broad daylight occurrence, the prosecution witnesses, who were the near relations of the two deceased, could not have left out the real culprits and falsely substituted in their place some innocent persons. (4) That significantly enough. Nawab complainant and Elahi Bakhsh deceased, who were bound down under the Control of Groondas Ordinance within the jurisdiction of Raiwind Police Station and
---
## Page 7
had visited Lahore on the fateful day after obtain--ing permission from Abdul Haq, S. H. O., P. W. 20, which clearly excluded the possibility of an unlawful errand and spoke of their bona fides. (5) That for personal reasons the local police was not only inimical to them but patronised Taj Din and Ayub appellants who in token of their service and support to the police in the judicial inquiry held in the death of Jagga were also granted commendation certificates and for all these reasons the investigat--ing Officer unjustifiably accepted the false and frivolous pleas of alibi raised on behalf of the appellants and spoiled the case of the complainant. (6) The delay in the lodging of the complaint was sought to be explained away on the ground that it was filed within a couple of days of the dismissal of the transfer application filed by Muhammad Hanif P. W. In the High Court referred to earlier. Reference was also made to the so-called fabrication of evidence, the interpolation of the Pepsi Cola advertisement board in the recovery memo. Exh. P. E. (7) Lastly, it was contended that if the deceased and the prosecution…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.