Evidentiary Value of Supplementary Statement

Evidentiary Value of Supplementary Statement Case Laws Criminal Appeal Criminal Law Knowledge - Criminal Law Lahore High Court Litigation & Arbitration Murder Solutions - Criminal Law Supplementary Statement Mr. Justice Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad in his judgment has decided the issue regarding conviction and evidentiary value of supplementary statement in Criminal Appeal No. 2071 of 2012.

1. This judgment will dispose of above captioned criminal appeal filed by Muhammad Ali & Muhammad Faisal appellants who were convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in case FIR No.1056 dated 20.08.2008 registered under Sections 302/392/109, PPC, at Police Station Shahdara, vide impugned judgment dated 08.12.2012 and sentenced as under:

Death as Ta’zir to both appellants under Section 302(b) PPC for causing death of Hameeda Bibi and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- each as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased as required u/s 544-A Cr. P.C and in default of payment, further undergo S.I for six months each.

Ten years rigorous imprisonment to both appellants under Section 392, PPC, and to pay Rs.20,000/- each as fine and in default of payment, further undergo S.I for six months each.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, appellants preferred appeal, complainant Criminal Revision No.1244/2012 for enhancement of compensation amount whereas trial court sent Murder Reference No.498/2012, under section 374, Cr. P.C. for confirmation of death sentence awarded to Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Faisal appellants. Complainant also filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.3910-M/2013 for condonation of delay in filing appeal against acquittal of co-accused. We propose to decide all the matters through this consolidated judgment.

2. Ijaz Hameed complainant got registered this case on 20.08.2008 through complaint Ex.PG/1 stating therein that on 20.08.2008 at about 05.00 p.m, he, his mother Hameeda Begum, his wife Mst. Adila, his sister in law Mst. Farhat and younger children were present in the house when four unknown persons on seeing the door open, stepped into the house whose appearances were (1) thin body wearing pant shirt height 5’ 6“ colour Gandami armed with pistol (2) black colour wearing Shalwar Qameez body strong height average armed with pistol (3) thin and strong body wearing pant shirt colour Gandmi, height average, armed with pistol (4) body fat and strong wearing Shalwar Qameez, height average, carrying bag in hand aged about 24 years. They closed the main gate of the house from inside and aimed their weapons at complainant party and asked inmates not to raise voice. Accused tied him with ropes and also tied his mother on the cot. When his mother tried to speak, accused mentioned at serial No.1 wearing pant shirt inflicted butt blows and tied a rope around her neck. They also tied his wife and sister in law and started searching the house. They committed robbery and then fled away from the southern door of the house. After that children raised noise upon which neighbours Sheikh Maqsood Ahmad and Yasir etc. came who cut the ropes and untied them. His neighbours readily shifted his wife, sister in law and mother to Bajwa Hospital where doctor told that his mother had already died and discharged his wife and sister in law after providing first aid to them. On checking of house, they found Rs.15,000/ and golden ornaments weighing 25 tolas valuing Rs.5,00,000/- missing. Lateron complainant through his supplementary statement dated 02.09.2008 nominated present appellants and his wife and sister in law as culprits of the occurrence and also disclosed the motive that his wife and sister in law were having strained relations with his mother and present appellants on abetment of his wife and sister in law, committed the occurrence.

3. PW-14 Shams ul Hassan SI on receiving in formation of the occurrence, reached Bajwa Hospital, prepared inquest report Ex.PR, sent the deadbody to mortuary for postmortem examination, prepared injury statement Ex.PT, visited the place of occurrence, prepared recovery memos, recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Subsequent investigation was conducted by Mukhtar Ahmad Inspector CIA (PW-19) who recorded supplementary statement of complainant and statements of PWs under Section 161 Cr. P.C, arrested appellants on 18.09.2008 and got recovered pistol P-4 on pointation of Muhammad Ali and 30 bore pistol P-8 and partial looted gold ornaments alongwith mobile phone and submitted report under Section 173 Cr. P.C.

4. Dr. Atfa Naheed (PW-9) conducted postmortem examination on the deadbody of Mst. Hameedan Bibi and noted three injuries on her deadbody. According to her, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, caused by blunt means. Cause of death was interference with respiration at the level of neck due to ligature strangulation leading to asphyxia. Time between injuries and death was within a few minutes and between death and postmortem was 16 to 24 hours.

5. Ocular account was furnished by PW-12 Ijaz Hameed complainant and PW-10 Muhammad Mushtaq. At the trial, prosecution produced 19-PWs whereas remaining were given up. Statements of appellants were recorded under Section 342 Cr. P.C wherein they denied the charges and professed their innocence.

6. At the conclusion of trial, appellants Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Faisal were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above whereas their co-accused were acquitted. Hence, instant reference as well as appeal.

7. Learned counsel for appellants contended that present appellants were falsely implicated with mala fide intention and ulterior motive by the complainant; that incident was reported by complainant Ijaz Hameed, son of Mst. Hameeda Begum deceased who got the case registered against unknown culprits giving their features in the body of FIR but lateron changed his version; that after about two weeks he in his supplementary statement changed his version implicating present appellants alongwith their co-accused (since acquitted); that the ocular account in this case was not worth reliance rather it was a concocted story diametrically opposed to the version contained in FIR, hence, was liable to be rejected straightaway; that learned trial court has not correctly appreciated evidence in this case and conviction recorded against appellants is not sustainable.

8. Conversely, learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has supported the impugned judgment in respect of conviction recorded against the appellants and further contended that the ocular account furnished by the complainant Ijaz Hameed as well as Muhammad Mushtaqa (PW-10) was confidence inspiring and supported by recoveries of stolen ornaments and other circumstances which came to light during investigation, hence, the appellants were rightly convicted by the trial court.

Further information regarding evidentiary value of supplementary statement can be solicited from AUJ LAWYERS. Feel free to contact us in case you need any clarification and/or require legal assistance regarding similar matters.