' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Appellant Anjum Sohail Bhatti was tried under section 302, P.P.C. In case F.I.R. No,298, dated 27-6-1995 registered with Police Station Baghbanpura, Gujranwala for on the same day at about 10-00 a.m. Along with two unknown persons, while armed with .30 bore pistol, committing the Qatl-eAmd of deceased Pervaiz Ghori in his house situated at Street No,3, Mohallah Chah Telianwala falling within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid police station.
2. On the conclusion of the trial, he was found guilty of the charge and so vide the judgment rendered on 29-11-1999 by Rao Shafey Ali Khan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to death as "Tazir" subject to confirmation by this Court. He was directed to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.
3. He feeling himself aggrieved of the impugned judgment has brought the same under attack by way of the instant appeal.
4. The learned trial Court has submitted the above mentioned Murder Reference for confirmation of his sentence of death as required under section 374, Cr.P.0 .
5. As both these matters have arisen out of one and the same case, hence are being disposed of by this single judgment.
6. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of these matters are that the said case has been registered on the statement of Khalida Parveen (P.W.1). She has alleged therein that on 27-6-1995 at about 10-00 a.m. She along with her husband Pervaiz Ghori and Mst. Neelam, the sister of his husband was present in her house. In the meanwhile, Sadiq Masih son of Hakim Masih, her Mohallah Dar also came there. Sohail Bhatti son of Bashir Masih, caste Esai, resident of Khiali Shah Pur along with two unknown persons in a Suzuki Pickup came in front of their house. He was armed with 30 bore pistol. He along with his companions entered the courtyard of their house. He while raising Lalkara fired at her husband Pervaiz Ghori, which hit him on the left side of his back and it went through the right side of his belly, who fell down. She, Mst. Neelam and Sadiq Masih rushed towards them. They beseeched Shoail Bhatti at the door of the house not to fire at him. Sohail Bhatti upon the same went away in the Pickup along with his companions. Pervaiz Ghori succumbed to his injuries at the spot.
7. The motive behind the occurrence is that Mst. Neelam about two years ago without the consent of the deceased had married accused Sohail Bhatti. The deceased did not want to send her to him.
The accused grudge over the same have murdered him.
8. The appellant after due investigation was challaned to the Court. He was formally charged under section 302, P.P.C. He pleaded guilty.
9. The prosecution at his trial has examined it's eight witnesses. They were: "Khalida Parveen P.W.1 Arif Hussain Ayyaz-Draftsman (P.W.2), Riaz Ahmad-ASI (P.W.3), Muhammad Anwar (P.W.4), Dr. Bashrat Rasool (P.W.5), Nadeem (P.W.6), Nabi Ahmad (P.W.7) and Ashraf Masih (P.W. 8).
10. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Exh.P.K., the report of the Chemical Examiner Exh PM and that of Serologist Exh. PN were tendered in the evidence.
11. He in his examination under section 342,, Cr.P.C. Has denied the allegation appearing against him in the prosecution evidence.
12. He while replying the question that why the P.Ws. Have deposed against him and why the case is against him has stated as under:-- "I have been involved falsely in this case of blind murder by Khalida Parvaiz complainant because she was against my marriage with Mst. Neelam and on this marriage she nourished grudge and connected me with this case of blind murder only to fulfil his grudge and malice against me. The other P.Ws. Ashraf Masih is a close relative of Khalida Parvaiz and even the other P.Ws except the P.Ws. Belonging to police are close relatives of Khalida Parvaiz complainant. Therefore, to strengthen the false case lodged against me by Khalida Parvaiz complainant, they have deposed against me.
13. He produced his wife Mst. Neelam in his defence as D.W.1. He, however, opted not to appear as his own witness on oath in disproof of allegation appearing against him in the prosecution evidence.
14. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties concluded that the charge of the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased stood proved against him beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. It, therefore, has convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.
15. It has only been argued on his behalf that his sentence may be reduced as he has fired only one shot at the deceased and did not repeat the same and that he is a first offender. However, his conviction has not been assailed by his learned counsel.
16. As against the same, the learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment.
According to him, there exists no extenuating circumstances to reduce his sentence.
17. We have carefully considered the submiissions made on behalf of the parties and gone into the record.
18. We find that the prosecution in support of it's case against him has relied upon it's different pieces of the evidence. These mainly were the ocular evidence, medical evidence and the motive.
19. The ocular account of the prosecution has been furnished by Mst. Khalida Parvaiz (P.W.1). She has narrated all the details of the incident in line of F.I.R. Exh. PA. She no doubt is widow of the deceased but also the inmate of the house where the incident had taken place. She had furnished the eyewitness account of the same. She has no enmity with the appellant. The occurrence was of day time. The appellant was known to her. There was, thus no chance of any mistake about his identity with her. She has stated that he had fired with .30 bore pistol at the deceased, which hit him on left side of his back and the bullet passed through and through from the front side of the belly.
' She having no animus against the appellant was a reliable witness. It may be mentioned here that even a solitary witness, whose evidence may be confidence inspiring and ringing With truth is sufficient to base conviction of accused.
20. The medical evidence has lent full corroboration to the ocular testimony. Dr. Basharat Rasool has found the following injuries found on the dead body of the deceased on autopsy: ' Injury No, 1 ' A firearm wound of entry 1/2 x 1/2 cm going deep on the left side of the abdomen back part, 10 c.m.
From midline back margin inverted indirection.
' Injury No,2 ' A fire arm wound of exit with everted margin 1-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. On the right side of the epigashuim region, 10 c.m. From right nipple 2 c.m. From mid line.
21. According to him, the injury No,1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
The probable time between the injuries and the death was 15/20 minutes and between death and postmortem 24 hours. The incident had taken place at about 10-00 a.m. The death of the deceased as per the testimony of P.W.1 had taken place soon after the infliction of the injuries to him. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 28-6-1995 at about 9-30 a.m. It, thus was on the next day of the incident. The time of sustaining of injuries by the deceased and his death and of the postmortem tallies with the time of these events as has appeared in the testimony of the P.W.1. There has been found nothing in the evidence of doctor to say that the medical evidence in any way was in conflict with the ocular testimony. This, therefore, was rightly received as supportive to the same.
22. Mst. Khalida Parveen (D.W.1) has narrated the motive at the trial. It is the same as has been mentioned by her in the F.I.R. Exh.P.A. She has been found to be a reliable witness. There seems no reason to disbelieve her on that count. The motive, therefore, stood proved on the record. The same, thus, was rightly received as a circumstance in corroboration to the ocular testimony. The appellant has pleaded bare denial. He has produced his wife Mst. Neelam as his witness in defence. She rather, has completely supported the case of the prosecution against him. She has stated that he had murdered the deceased in house in her presence. She has not at all been cross-examined by him. It means that he had no reservation against her such testimony. This was a further supportive piece of evidence to the prosecution version against him. He, therefore, was rightly found guilty of the charge of the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased. His conviction, therefore, was rightly recorded. His learned counsel, therefore, has rightly not assailed the same. His conviction, therefore, is maintained.
23. As regards the question of sentence to him, he merely due to his having not repeated the fire to the deceased is not entitled to the lesser sentence than death. It is also not good ground to award him lesser penalty that he is first offender. It rather, has appeared that he came in the house of the deceased while armed with pistol along with his companions to take away his life. He fired at him at such part of the body that his death was inevitable. There, thus do not exist any mitigating circumstances to warrant reduction in his sentence. The sentence awarded to him, therefore, is maintained being correct. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed being without force.
24. The Murder Reference is answered in the Affirmative. The sentence of death is confirmed.