' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.--- Petitioner, Sher Zaman, through Jail Petition No,26 of 2002, has impugned the judgment, dated 24-10-2001 of a learned Division Bench, Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, passed in Criminal Appeal No,275 of 1999, whereby said appeal against the judgment, dated 24-11-1999 of Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Jhelum convicting the petitioner for various sentences including death on two counts was dismissed.
2. The occurrence took place on 28-4-1996 at about 8-00 a.m. In the house of the petitioner situated in Village Killa Rajgan Dakhli Bakrala within the limits of Police Station Sohawa, District Jhelum. F.I.R. Was lodged by Raja Ameer Dad at said police station. It was recorded by Malik Muhammad Bashir, S.H.O. In this incident Rab Nawaz and Mst. Payari Jan wife of Rab Nawaz were killed, while the complainant, Shah Nawaz, Fazal Dad and Muhammad Sajjad sustained injuries.
Rab Nawaz expired on the spot, while Mst. Payari Jan succumbed to her injuries on 30-4-1996.
3. The motive as set up by the prosecution was that the parties were closely related and had strained relations before the occurrence.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Rab Nawaz deceased was first cousin of the complainant and they were also related to each other through marriages of their children. It is alleged that on the day of occurrence, the complainant along with Raja Rab Nawaz, Shah Nawaz son of Rab Nawaz, Fazal Dad, brother of the complainant, Muhammad Sajjad son of .The complainant and Mst. Payari Jan wife of Rab Nawaz went to the house of the petitioner to invite them to attend the marriages of Shah Nawaz and Mst. Shakila, who are the son and daughter of Rab Nawaz. The complainant party had gone for reconciliation and removing the misunderstanding, which existed between them. There was also a dispute between them over land for which a civil suit was pending before Civil Judge. The houses of Rab Nawaz deceased and Gul Zaman were adjacent. When the complainant party reached the house of Gul Zaman, the petitioner came out from a room with .222 automatic rifle and started firing upon the complainant party, as a result of which, two persons were killed and four sustained fire-arm injuries.
5. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner before the Court, having jurisdiction in the matter.
6. At trial, the prosecution examined, as many as 15 witnesses, namely, Dr. Khalid Javed P.W.1, Muhammad Din P.W.2, Muhammad Siddique P.W.3, Afzal Mehdi, H.C. No,20 P.W.4, Muhammad Sharif Constable No,1016 P.W.5, Dr. Shahid Ahmed Mian P.W.6, Dr. Shahid Baig P.W.7, Muhammad Ikhlaque P.W.8, Amir Kabal P.W.9, Raja Ameer Dad complainant P.W.10, Shah Nawaz P.W.11, Fazal Dad P.W.12, Zulfiqar Ali Shah P.W.13, Akhlaq Ahmed P.W.14 and Malik Muhammad Bashir P.W.15.
7. The petitioner in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution's allegations and claimed to be innocent. According to him, Mst. Shakila Bibi is a daughter of his uncle Rab Nawaz. She is well-educated. She was born in Britain. He alleged that complainant wanted her to be married with one Majid, who is a son of his (complainant) sister. Mst. Shakila, however, did not agree for it, as said Majid was absolutely illiterate. The petitioner maintained that Mst. Shakila after refusing to marry, as above, took shelter in his house and requested his (petitioner) father to intervene. It is alleged that the complainant party forcibly tried to take her back. She retaliated and said that she would kill herself and would not marry said Majid. The petitioner further stated that she picked up his licensed 222 rifle and attempted to suicide, but his father and other persons tried to snatch it from her and during scuffle it went off killing two persons and causing injuries to four all named above. The petitioner also stated that at the time of occurrence he was not present in his house and the complainant with collusion of others falsely involved him in this case.
8. The factum of death of two deceased and injuries on the persons named earlier are not disputed. In fact, the occurrence is admitted with the assertion that it took place in the manner narrated by the petitioner and not as alleged by the prosecution.
9. On assessm ent of evidence brought on record learned trial Judge convicted the petitioner as follows:-- "(a) Under section 302, P.P.C. For committing the murder of Rab Nawaz and Mst. Payari Jan, the appellant was sentenced to death on two counts.
(b) Under section 324, P.P.C. For an attempt at the life of the witnesses, R.I. For ten years with a fine of Rs,30,000 and in default of the payment of fine to undergo R.I. For two years.
(c) Under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. (i) For causing injuries to Shah Nawaz, payment of Rs,2,000 as Daman with the sentence of R.I. For three years as Ta'zir for each injury.
(ii) For causing injuries to Fazal Dad, payment of Rs,2,000 as Daman with the sentence of three years' R.I. As Ta'zir.
(iii) For causing injury to Muhammad Sajjad, payment of Rs,2,000 as Daman with the sentence of three years' R.I. As Ta'zir.
(d) Under section 337-F(iv), P.P.C. (i) For causing injury to Muhammad Sajjad, payment of Rs,5,000 as Daman with imprisonment for a period of five years' R.I. As Ta'zir.
(ii) For causing injury to Ameer Dad, payment of Rs,5,000 as Daman with the imprisonment for a term of five years' R.I. In case of non-payment of the amount of Daman, the convict would remain in jail and undergo simple imprisonment till the payment of Daman, which on recovery would be paid to the victims
(e) The appellant was also directed to pay compensation of Rs,50, 000 for each murder to be paid to the legal heirs of Rab Nawaz and Mst. Payari Jan. In addition to the above compensation, the appellant was burdened with the payment of Rs,10,000 as compensation to each injured and in default of the payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, the appellant was directed to undergo R.I. For six months on each count. In case of default of payment of compensation to the injured, he would undergo R.I. For two months. The different sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C."
10. Learned High Court upheld above convictions and sentences but conviction and sentence under section 324, P.P.C. Were set aside.
11. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that both trial Court and High Court have failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and reached wrong conclusion. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner in his statement has given the true picture of the incident and the story disclosed by him ought to have been believed and he should have been acquitted.
12. The occurrence took place in broad daylight and was witnessed by the complainant and four injured witnesses, who fully implicated the petitioner for committing this crime and held him responsible for the same. Their testimony is reliable and nothing material has been brought on record to discard it. They are natural witnesses and their presence on the spot was established beyond any shadow of doubt. It is a case of single accused and F.I.R. Was lodged promptly. We asked learned counsel for the petitioner to point out any piece of evidence, which could support his contentions. He submitted that besides the statement of the petitioner nothing is available on record to prove his innocence. The story of snatching rifle is nothing more than a fiction. The petitioner alone is responsible for this crime. It was a brutal act on his part. He did not examine himself on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. It is true that it was his option to examine or not examine himself under said section, but his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. By itself, under the circumstances, is not enough to prove his innocence. The six empties recovered from the spot matched with his .222 licensed rifle. No interference is warranted.
13. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.