IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Jail Appeal No. 172 of 2012

Appellant: Ali through Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed Shah advocate

The State: Through Mr. Faheem Hussain Panhwar, Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of hearing: 28.09.2022

Date of judgment: 28.09.2022

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J- It is alleged that the appellant has committed death of his own father Nathalo by causing him hatchet injury on his neck, for that he was booked and reported upon. After due trial, he was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C, by learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta vide judgment dated 27.03.2012, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant appeal from jail.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to deprive him of his legitimate share in the property left by his father; the hatchet has been foisted upon the appellant and evidence of the P.Ws being doubtful in its character has been believed by the trial Court without lawful justification. In support of his contention, he relied upon cases of (i) Muhammad Ibrahim vs. Ahmed Ali and others (2010 SCMR 637), (ii) Mst. Sughra Begum and another vs. Qaiser Pervez and others (2015 SCMR 1142), (iii) Muhammad Asif vs. The State (2017 SCMR 486) and (iv) Fayyaz Ahmad vs. The State (2017 SCMR 2026).

3. None has come forward to advance arguments on behalf of the complainant. However, learned D.P.G for the state by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of instant jail appeal, by contending that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.

4. Heard arguments and perused the record.

5. It is stated by complainant Muhammad Moosa that it was intimated to him by the deceased on cell phone that the appellant being his son has become disobedient; on such information, he advised the appellant to be obedient to his father, which he refused to be by saying that his father is not giving him share in land and he will not spare him. On the date of incident, when the deceased was working in his land, there came the appellant and committed death of the deceased by causing him hatchet blow, on his neck and then fled away, the incident was witnessed by P.Ws Mevo and Allah Samayo, then they took the dead body of the deceased to RHC Baggan and thereafter reported the incident to police. The complainant in his version is supported by P.W Mevo who happened to be the brother of the appellant. The factum of the death of the deceased as alleged by the prosecution, takes support from evidence of Medical Officer Dr. Muhammad Saleem. As per I.O/ASI Islam Tanoli, on investigation he arrested the appellant and secured the hatchet allegedly used by him in the commission of incident at his pointation. The complainant and his witnesses have stood by their version on all material points with regard to the death of the deceased at the hands of appellant, despite lengthy cross-examination, they could not be disbelieved only for the reason that they are inconsistent with regard to the dispatch of the dead body of the deceased to RHC Baggan and recovery of hatchet from the appellant, such inconsistencies even otherwise, being immaterial deserves to be ignored. The appellant has claimed his substitution with real culprit of the incident which appears to be rare phenomenon. The complainant and P.W Mevo being closely related to the appellant were having no reason to have involved him in this case falsely by letting the real culprit of the incident. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to make a conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.

6. In the case of Muhammad Ibrahim (supra) there was conflict between the ocular and medical evidence with regard to the duration between death and postmortem. In the instant case there is no such conflict. In the case of Mst. Sughra Begum (supra) there was noticeable delay in lodgment of the FIR. In the instant case there was no such delay in lodgment of FIR. In the case of Muhammad Asif (supra) it was night time incident as such the identity of the accused with dagger was found to be doubtful. In the instant case, the incident had taken place at day time and no issue of mistaken identity of the appellant is involved. In the case of Fayyaz Ahmad (supra) it was unwitnessed incident. In the instant case the incident is witnessed by the complainant and P.W Mevo.

7. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, it is concluded safely that the impugned judgment is not calling for any interference by this Court by way of instant jail appeal, it is dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE