P L D 2018 Balochistan 80
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati, and Abdullah Baloch, JJ MUHAMMAD NAEEM ---Appellant
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Jail Appeal No.47 of 2015, decided on 9th October, 2017.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 302(b) ---Qanun- e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 121- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of
evidence ---Circumstantial evidence ---Burden of proof ---Accused was charged for the murder
of his wife ---Prosecution produced three witnesses including father of the deceas ed to prove
the charge against the accused ---Record showed that one witness corroborated the statement
of another witness ---Said witnesses remained firm in their depositions that the accused had
committed the murder of deceased and correctly indentified th e accused in the Trial Court ---
Statements of said witnesses were circumstantial, which connected one instance with the
other ---Statements of said witnesses were not shattered in any manner to benefit the accused -
--Accused had not explained as to how and who had committed the murder of his wife ---Bald
denial of the accused was not enough to save him from the charge of murder ---Under Art.121
of Qanun- e-Shahdat, 1984, the burden lay on the accused to explain the murder of his wife
committed in his house, which he failed ---Appeal against conviction and sentence was
dismissed in circumstances.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 302(b) ---Qatl -i-amd---Apreciation of evidence ---Conduct of accused---Effect ---Despite
murder of his wife, accused kept quiet and had not lodged report against any one and had not
held responsible any third person for the murder ---Circumstances established that at the time
of said murder, accused was present in the housse ---Accused had not disputed the unnatural
death of the deceased ---Facts and circumstances of the case suggested that actually the
accused had committed the murder of his wife and due to the incident, his relatives locked
him in a room and handed him over to the police ---Appeal against conviction and sentence
was dismisse d in circumstances.
Wali Muhammad v. Ellahi Bakhsh 2005 SCMR 1526 and Saeed Ahmed v. The State
2015 SCMR 710 rel.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 302(b) ---Qatl -i-amd---Apreciation of evidence ---Ocular account ---Accused was
charged for the murder of his wife by inflicting churri blows ---Prosecusion produced real
sister of the deceased, a minor as witness in order to prove the ocular account of the case ---
Statement of said witness showed that she was intelligent enough to understand as to what had be en done to her sister ---Neither she nor her father had any motive to falsely implicate
the accused ---Admittedly said witnesss was a minor, but she replied the questions put by the
Trial Court correctly, which established the soundness of her mind---Stateme nt of said
witness could not be thrown aside mainly on the ground of her being minor of eleven years
but her statement alone was enough to establish the charge of murder against the accused ---
Nothing on record showed that said witness was tutored by her pa rents ---Circumstances
established that prosecution had proved the case beyong any reasonable doubt ---Appeal
against conviction and sentence was dismissed accordingly.
Muhammad Anwar v. State 1985 PCr.LJ 2500; Muzammil Shah v.State 1991 MLD
1944 and Usmanullah v. Sharfullah and others v. The State 2016 PCr.LJ 1558 rel.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 302(b) ---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl -i-amd---Appreciation of
evidence ---Confessional statement of accused ---Value---Prosecution case was that accused
committed murder of his wife by inflicting churri blows ---Record showed that FIR was
lodged and on the same day accused was arrested ---Accused was produced before the
Judicial Magistrate on the next day where he made confessional stat ement ---Circumstances
showed that soon after his arrest, accused showed his willingness to record the confessional
statement ---Accused in his confessional statement had uttered the whole story with regard to
the murder of his wife ---Appeal against convicti on and sentence was dismissed in
circumstances.
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 302(b) ---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl -i-amd---Appreciation of
evidence ---Confession, recording of ---Scope---Confessional statement of accused refl ected
that the same was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate in accordance with law by putting all
relevant questions to the accused and the answers were properly recorded ---Confessinal
statement of the accused showed that same was recorded without any coer cion, pressure,
torture or blackmail ---No reason was available to disagree or disbelieve such confessional
statement, which appeared to be recorded in accordance with law.
Hashim Qasim v. The State 2017 SCMR 986 rel.
(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 302(b) ---Qatl -i-amd---Appreciation of evidence ---Non -production of medical evidence -
--Effect ---Defence objected that deceased was not medically examined which proved that
deceased was not murdered ---Record showed that defence throughout the case had not
disputed the unnatural death of deceased---Circumstantial, direct evidence, confession of the accused and the recovery of churri (crime weapon) were enough to establish the unnatural death of the deceased ---Sufficient incriminating evidence was on record establishing the
unnatural death of the deceased ---Non-production of medical certificate of deceased was not
fatal nor it could benefit the accused.
Sikandar v. The State 2006 SCMR 1786 rel.
(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 302(b) ---Qatl-i-amd---Ap preciation of evidence---Delay of about three days in lodging
FIR---Effect ---Complainant being Dafedar Levies on receipt of spy information reached at
the place of occurrence and not only caused the arrest of the accused, but also registered the
FIR agains t him--- In the presence of recovery of weapon of offence, confessional statement
of the accused and other evidence produced by the prosecution, the delay in registering the FIR was a minor illegality and not enough to diminish the entire prosecution evidence.
Muhammad Nadeem v. The State 2011 SCMR 872 rel.
Muhammad Arif Achakzai for Appellant.
Naeem Kakar, Additional P.G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 25th September, 2017.
JUDGMENT
ABDULLAH BALOCH, J. ---The appellant Muhammad Naeem son of Sikandar has
filed this Jail Appeal through Superintendent Central Prison Mach, assailing his conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Pishin (hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court") vide judgment dated 24th August 2015 ( hereinafter referred as, "the
impugned judgment"), whereby he has been convicted under Section 302(b) P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for Life as Tazeer with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/ -
(Rupees Ten Lac) to the legal heirs of deceased as per provisions contained under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. or in default thereof to further suffer R.I. for two years, with the benefit of
Section 382- B, Cr.P.C.
2. It is the case of prosecution that on 8th April 2013, the complainant Abdul Karim
Dafedar Levies lodg ed FIR No.10/2013 at Levies Thana Huramzai Pishin, stating therein that
he received spy information that in Killi Landi Manzari, one person namely Muhammad Naeem has murdered his wife namely Syed Bibi daughter of Samandar by inflicting Churri ( ) blows, he nce he reached at the place of occurrence where it revealed that the accused has
murdered his wife, as such, he was arrested, while the deceased had already been buried.
3. In pursuance of the above FIR, investigation of the case was entrusted to PW -8
Muha mmad Younas, Naib Resaldar, who during investigation prepared site plan and arrested
the accused at the place of occurrence; recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; got recorded the statement of appellant under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; recovered the crime weapon i.e. Churri, and on completion of investigation submitted the challan in the trial Court.
4. At the trial, the prcsecution examined eight witnesses. The appellant was examined
under Section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant neither recorded his statement on oath under
Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any witness in his defense. On conclusion of trial and after hearing the arguments, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above in Para No.1, whereafter instant Criminal Jail Appeal has been filed before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for pauper appellant contended that the prosecution has badly failed
to establish the charge against the appellant; that the impugned judgement suffers from mis -
reading, non- reading and mis -appreciation of evidence available on record; that the murder of
deceased wife of the appellant has not been proved on record as the prosecution has failed to
produce any medical evidence in such behalf and in absence thereof it cannot be held that the
death of deceased was unnatural; that the child is most untrustworthy witness and on the sole statement of a child, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained; that the confessional statements of the appellant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is the result of coercion and pressure; that no recovery of crime weapon was effected from the possession of the appellant and even such recovery was not effected on the pointation of appellant rather the same was foisted upon the appellant just to strengthened the case of prosecution; that the FIR was lodged after
delay of three days of occurrence; that the witnesses made contradictory statements to each other and they did not support the prosecution case in specific terms.
6. Learned D.P.G. while supporting the impugne d judgement of conviction, strongly
opposed the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and stated that
the prosecution through concrete, solid and cogent evidence has been succeeded in establishing the charge against the appellant; that the case of prosecution has been
strengthened from recording the statement of appellant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as
recovery of crime weapon and the direct statement of PWs; that the appellant has failed to
bring on record any mala fide or ul terior motive on the part of prosecution with regard to his
false implication.
7. Heard the learned counsel and perused the available record. Perusal of record reveals
that the prosecution in order to establish the charge has produced direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, confessional statement of appellant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also produced the crime weapon through which the deceased was murdered. Undoubtedly, the deceased Syed Bibi was the wife of appellant, Muhammad Naeem, who was m urdered in the house of the appellant. It has been observed that all the witnesses so
produced by the prosecution are the close relatives of both the appellant and the deceased Syed Bibi, thus it is not expected that the close relatives would involve any i nnocent person
and will let free the real culprits:
8. The prosecution in order to establish the charge has produced the evidence of eight
witnesses. The complainant of the case appeared as PW -1, who reiterated the contents of
fard-e-bayan Ex.P/1- A, wherei n he has stated that on 8th April 2013 on receipt of spy
information that the appellant Muhammad Naeem has murdered his wife Syed Bibi on 5th April 2013, hence on such information he reached at the place of occurrence and on query it was established that M uhammad Naeem has murdered his wife, hence he was arrested and
FIR was registered against him. The defence has hot disputed the arrest of the appellant from the place of occurrence. PW -2 Mir Hamza is the father of the deceased Syed Bibi, who in his
stateme nt stated that on the day of occurrence he was at Harnai in Coal Mines, when received
information that the appellant has murdered his daughter Syed Bibi, hence he along with his relatives reached at the house of appellant and taken dead body of his daughte r. PW -2
admitted that on the day of occurrence the appellant was also in Harnai, voluntarily stated that on reaching his house, the appellant has murdered the deceased. PW -3 Bibi Rafia was the
sister of deceased Syed Bibi, who at the time of occurrence was very much present in the
house of her sister, who in her statement correctly mentioned the date of occurrence as 5th April 2013 when her brother -in-law i.e. the appellant came to his house and quarreled with
the deceased, whereafter her sister deceased Sy ed Bibi started shouting that Muhammad
Naeem is beating her, hence when she reached there, she found injured her sister, therefore, he requested the appellant not to beat her sister, whereafter he informed Obaid Ullah, who is the brother of appellant Muham mad Naeem, but till his arrival her sister had succumbed to
the injuries. Thereafter, the appellant also threatened to kill her. At this juncture it is
necessary to mention here that since PW -3 is a minor of 11- years and hence the Court put
questions upon her, which were replied correctly by the PW -3 and she also identified the
appellant in the trial Court, whereafter the Court granted permission to the defence counsel to
cross -examine the witness. PW -3 was cross -examined at sufficient length, but the defen ce has
failed to shake her testimony rather in her cross -examination the witness remained firm in her
deposition and correctly named the appellant and also correctly narrated the manner, in which the occurrence had taken place.
9. PW-4 Muhammad Ibrahim and PW -5 Muhammad Umer are circumstantial witnesses,
who were informed by the inhabitants that the appellant has murdered his wife Syed Bibi, hence they reached at the house of appellant and found lying the dead body of the deceased. Both the witnesses were also cross -examined by the defence, but no question with regard to
bring on record the mala fide on the part of said witnesses were put upon them.
10. The prosecution has produced the circumstantial evidence in the shape of statements
of PW -2. PW -4 and PW -5, perusal of which reflect that one witness is corroborating the
statement of another witness. All the witnesses remained firm in their deposition that the
appellant has committed the murder of deceased Syed Bibi. All the witnesses correctly identified th e appellant in the trial Court as murderous of the deceased Syed Bibi. It has
further come on record that both the parties are related with each other, therefore, after committing the murder of deeceased, the appellant was locked in the house and no harm w as
committed with him, whereafter he was handed over to the Levies.
11. A minute perusal of these statements depicts a clear picture of the tragic incident.
Such statements of witnesses are circumstantial, which are connecting the one instance with
the other. These statements have not been shattered in any manner to reap a benefit in favour of accused. There is no explanation on the part of the appellant that as to how and who has committed the murder of his wife. A bald denial of the appellant is not enoug h to rescue him
from the charges of murder and as per provisions of Article 121 of Qanun -e-Shahadat Order,
1984, the burden of prove lies on the shoulder of appellant to explain the murder of his wife committed in his house, to which the appellant has absolutely failed to shift the said burden upon his shoulders.
12. The conduct of the appellant has also strengthened the case of prosecution, who
despite murder of his wife kept mum and has not lodged report against any one and even has
not held responsible t o any third person for such murder, when otherwise it has been
established through record that at the time of said murder he was present in his house. Besides, he has also not disputed the unnatural death of the deceased. All these facts suggest that actually it was the appellant, who has committed the murder of his wife and due to such reasons, his relatives locked him in a room and subsequently he was handed over to the levies. Hence, the circumstantial evidence is fully connected with each other with reg ard to
murder of Mst. Syed Bibi and circulation of such information in the village as well as receipt of such information to the father of deceased. Reliance in regard is placed on the case of Wali Muhammad v. Ellahi Bakhsh 2005 SCMR 1526, wherein it has been held that, "We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the evidence produed by the complainant. It may be noted that dead body of deceased was recovered from the house of the petitioner where Mst. Safia was living with him as his wife. Therefore, it is not possible to disbelieve the story of the prosecution." Similar view has also been taken in the case of Saeed Ahmed v. the State 2015 SCMR 710, for facilitation the relevant portion is reproduced herein below:
"8. In criminal cases it is for the prosecution to establish its case against an accused. It
is a fundamental principle of law that the burden of proof is on the prosecution
(Article 117 of the Qaanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984). However, in this case the young
wife of the appellant, who was living with him, was murdered. The appellant did not participate in her last rites and disappeared for a period of two months. The question that needs consideration is whether such unreasonable conduct of the appellant is of any consequence and also whether certain matters exclusively within his knowledge
were not explained by him, that is, not informing the police about his " wife's murder, not taking her to the hospital, not participating in her last rites and disappearing for a long period of two months. In this regard it would be appropriate to reproduce Article
122 of the Qanun -e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which is identical to the hitherto before
section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872: --
"122. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. When any fact is
especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving
that he had a ticket is on him."
13. Now adverting to the direct evidence, produced by the prosecution through the
evidence of PW -3. We have minutely analyzed the statement of said witness from all angles
and observed that she was intelligent enough to understand as to what had been done to her sister and neither she nor her father had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant. Th e
deceased was the sister of PW -3 and she alone had sympathy and natural love with his sister.
Admittedly, PW -3 is a minor, but at the time of examination in the trial Court, the trial judge
asked few questions from the said witness to test her intelligenc e and credibility, who was
capable of making rational answers to questions put to her and recorded note to that effect. This witness replied the questions so put by the trial Court correctly, which establishes the soundness of her mind and her statement ca nnot be thrown aside merely on the ground of her
being minor age of eleven years rather alone her statement is enough to establish the charge of murder against the appellant. Even otherwise there is nothing on record showing that this witness was tutored b y her parents. We are conscious of the fact that the rule of prudence
requires that the testimony of child witness should not be relied upon unless it is corroborated by some cogent evidence on the record. However, in the case in hand the statement of chil d
witness has fully been corroborated by the circumstantial witnesses i.e. PW -2, PW -3 and PW -
4 coupled with the confessional statement of appellant recorded before the Judicial Magistrate. Reliance in this regard is placed in the case of Muhammad Anwar v. State, 1985 PCr.LJ 2500, wherein that, "The said child who was a minor was put questions by the learned trial Judge to test her intelligence and credibility, the answers to which showed she understood the questions and could answer the same intelligently. Nothing appears in the evidence to show why the same of Mst. Asima Parveen, PW -3 cannot be accepted. In these
circumstances, the evidence of this kidnapped child alone is sufficient to prove the charge of kidnapping against the appellant." Similar view has also been taken in the case of Muzammil
Shah v. State, 1991 MLD 1944, wherein it has been held as under:
"10. We have gone through the evidence of Mst. Irshad (P.W.5) with care. Before
recording her statement, the learned trial Judge had recorded a note a fter putting her
certain questions that he was satisfied that the witness was intelligent and was capable of making rational answers to questions put to her. Besides, she has been subjected to fairly lengthy cross -examination which she had withstood to an astonishing degree. A
perusal of her statement shows that she made the statement in a frank and straightforward manner. Curiously there was no suggestion to her in her cross -
examination that she did not know the appellant. Then there are no circumstances t o
indicate that she might have been tutored. She had seen the appellant in the course of committing sodomy over the victim with his trousers loosened. She was intelligent enough to understand as to what had been done to her brother and neither she nor her father had any motive to falsely implicate him. We see no reason whatsoever why the statement of such a child witness should not be believed though a suggestion was made to Naeem Gul (P.W.4) that there was enmity of her relatives with the appellant. Nonetheless, the appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. did not take up this plea. We have not been able to discover any valid reason to reject the testimony of Mst. Irshad (PW.5).
Similar view has also been taken in the case of Usmanullah v. Sharfullah and others v.
The State, 2016 PCr.LJ 1558, the relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow:
"10. The learned trial Court in its judgment impugned herein has also referred to the statement of minor witness namely Hafeez -ur-Rehman (PW -11) who is the sole eye-
witness to the occurrence, however, his statement was not given credence by the trial for the reason that the same is inconsistent with the statements of other prosecution
witnesses. No doubt, there is no eye -witness to the occurrence except the child
witness Hafeez -ur-Rehman and the prosecution has produced him as the sole eye -
witness to the occurrence whose presence on the spot has been established as well. It is noticed that the child alone had sympathy and natural love with his father i.e. the deceased whereas his mother Mst. Abida had also joined hands with the accused,
therefore, in such like situation the statement of the natural and sole eye -witness
should have been considered by the trial Court. It is also a fact that PW -11 was nine
years of ag e at the time of recording his statement and being a child witness his
statement should not be compared with the statements of other major witnesses as much accuracy and complete consistency of his statement with that of the remaining witnesses cannot be expected keeping in view his minor age and other circwnstances of the case. However; the statement of PW -11 (the child witness) is consistent with
the confessional statements of the respondents/accused regarding the facts that his father had been subjected to asphyxiation at the night of occurrence and that he was removed from the scene by the juvenile accused Niaz -ur-Rehman."
14. The case of prosecution has further been strengthened by the confessional statement
of the appellant. Admittedly, the FIR was lod ged on 8th April 2013 and on the said date the
appellant was arrested, while he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate i.e. PW -7, on
the following day of his arrest. Meaning thereby soon after his arrest the appellant was feeling guilty of committing murder of his wife and that's why soon after his arrest he has shown his willingness to record the said statement. In reply to the question No.5 of the said confessional statement the appellant answered that he could not utter lie as after his death he will be answerable before Allah Al -Mighty and also his house (matrimony life) has been
ruined, therefore, he wants to utter true. We have also perused the confessional statement of
appellant Ex.P/7- B, which reflects that the same was recorded by the learned J udicial
Magistrate in accordance with law by putting all relevant questions upon the appellant and
recording the answers replied by the appellant. The appellant in his confessional statement has uttered the whole story with regard to his arrival in his house and quarrling of his wife with him. The statement of appellant confirms the presence of PW -3 in his house. He also
confirmed worse relations with his wife and in such behalf, he further explained that earlier he was arrested in Afghanistan on the compla int of his wife, while on the said date due to
denial of his wife of doing household work, he slept her and she was trying to go outside the house hence, due to such fear he inflicted 2/3 knife blows to his wife, which resulted into her murder.
15. The recording of the confessional statement by the appellant on the following day of
his arrest and the reply of question No.5 of the questionnaire, are enough to believe that the statement of the appellant was recorded without any coercion, pressure, torture or blackmail
rather the appellant realized his shamefaced act and due to embarrassment, he immediately
agreed to record his confessional statement. Thus, there is absolutely no reason available for
us to disagree or disbelieve such confessional statement, which on the face of it appears to be recorded in accordance with law, without any fear or torture. The Hon'ble apex Court in the
case of Hashim Qasim v. the State, 2017 SCMR 986, has held that, "For accepting a
confession, two essential requirements must be fulfilled; first, that the confession was made voluntarily and was based on true account of facts leading to the crime and, second, the same was proved at the trial." Admittedly, the said two essential requirements have been fulfilled in the case in han d as through the evidence it has not only been established that the same is
voluntarily, but also it was proved at the trial. Thus, the sole confessional statement of the appellant is enough to establish the charge of murder.
16. The next objection taken b y the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased
was not medically examined, thus it is not proved that she was murdered. Be that as it may, the defence throughout the case has not disputed the unnatural dealth of deceased. The circumstancial evidence of PW -2, 3 and 4 as well as the statement of PW -3 being direct
witness of the occurrence, coupled with the confession of the appellant and the recovery of crime weapon i.e. Churri, are enough to establish the unnatural death of the deceased and we have no hestitation to hold that there are sufficient incriminatory evidence on record establishing the unnatural death of the deceased Syed Bibi, hence the contention for non -
production of medical certificate of deceased is not fatal nor it can benefit th e appellant. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sikandar v. The State, 2006 SCMR 1786 has held as under: -
"The medical evidence is not substitute of direct evidence rather is only a source of corroboration in respect of nature and seat of injury, the kind of weapon used, the
duration between the injury and death and may confirm the ocular account to a limited extent but cannot establish the identity of the accused or connect him with the commission of offence, therefore, if the charge of murder is oth erwise proved through
the direct evidence, the absence of medical evidence may not be fatal."
17. We are also conscious of the fact that the FIR was lodged on the third day of
occurrence, as the alleged murder was committed on 5th April 2013, while the FIR was
lodged on 8th April 2013. Although, it is an illegality on the part of legal heirs of deceased Syed Bibi, who did not report the matter to the Levies soon after the occurrence rather PW -1
on receipt of spy information reached at the place of occurrenc e and not only caused the
arrest of the appellant, but also registered instant FIR against him. However, the illegality
occasioned in registering the FIR is compared with the other evidences produced by the prosecution, the delay in registering the FIR app ears to be a minor illegality and thus is not
enough to diminish the entire prosecution evidence coupled with recovery of crime weapon as well as the confessional statement of the appellant recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Thus, the objecti on so taken by the defence is also without any substance.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Muhammad Nadeem v. The State 2011 SCMR 872, wherein it has been held as under:
"So far as the FIR is concerned, it was, no doubt, delayed by 17 hours , yet seen in the
light of the attending circumstances of the case, the delay stands explained. It is an established principle of law and practice that in criminal cases the delay, by itself, in lodging the FIR is not material. The factors to be considered by the Courts are firstly,
that such delay stands reasonably explained and secondly, that the prosecution has not derived any undue advantage through the delay involved. The delay is explained in the FIR itself to the effect that everyone was busy at the hospital, struggling for the life of the victim."
18. The overall reappraisal of the evidence available on record, it is concluded that the
prosecution has successfully established the charge of murder against the appellant beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt; that all the witnesses remained firm in their deposition; that they fully supported the prosecution version and the defence has failed to cause any dent in the same; that the trial Court after proper appraisal of evidence available on record has rig htly
awarded conviction and sentence to the appellant; that the appellant has failed to point out any mala fide on the part of the complainant party for their false implication, who otherwise
are also his close relatives and they related with each other; t hat the appellant has failed to
point out any material contradiction and discrepancy which could benefit the defence version; that there is no error of law, misreading or non- reading of evidence in judgment passed by the
trial Court calling for interferenc e by this Court.
For the above reasons, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.
JK/151/Bal. Appeal dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.