Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.--The appellants Amanat Ali alias Mani son of Nazar Din and Muhammad Yaqoob, alongwith Muhammad Tufail, Amanat Ali son of Nawab Din, Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Ramzan, alias Jana, Ghulam Haider and Ghulam Qadir, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, in lieu of case FIR No, 307 registered at P:S. Dera Rahim on 19.10.1996 for offences under Sections 302/324/148/149 PPC. Vide judgment dated 3.2.2000, the learned trial Judge, while acquitting Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Ramzan alias Jana and Ghulam Haider, convicted and sentenced the appellants and other co-accused as follows:
(i) Amanat Ali alias Mani s/o Nazar Din & Muhammad Yaqoob, appellants for offences under Sections 302/148/149 PPC to death each plus compensation Rs, 50,000/- each, payable to the legal heirs of both the deceased Ramzan and Abdul Wahid or in default in payment thereof to undergo R.I. for six months each;
(ii) Ghulam Qadir for offence under Section 324. PPC to undergo imprisonment for five years plus Rs, 10,000/- as compensation to be paid to the injured Mst. Parsan Bibi or in default in payment thereof to suffer further imprisonment for six months; (iii)Amanat Ali son of Nawab & Muhammad Sharif for offence under Section 302 PPC to imprisonment for life each and also to pay Its. 25,000/- each as compensation to the legal heirs of Muhammad Ramzan, in default whereof to further under R.I. for six months each.
2. Aggrieved by their aforesaid conviction and sentence, Amanat All alias Mani-appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No, 74/2000, while Muhammad Yaqoob has preferred Criminal Appeal No, 113 of 2000, whereas Muhammad Akram complainant brought Criminal Appeal No, 156 of 2000, questioning the acquittal of Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Ramzan alias Jana and Ghulam Haider. Murder Reference No, 158/2000, seeking confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence awarded to the appellants is also before us. We propose to dispose of all these matters through this single judgment.
2A. It may be mentioned here that Amanat All son of Nawab Din and Muhammad Shafi had also challenged their conviction and sentence through Criminal Appeal No, 128 of 2000, which had been dismissed as having become infructuous, vide order of learned Judges of this Court dated 24.11.2004. Similarly, Criminal Revision No, 73 filed by the complainant, seeking enhancement of sentence against Amanat Ali s/o Nawab Din, Muhammad Shafi and Ghulam Qadir was dismissed vide order of even date.
3. The facts of the prosecution case, as narrated by Muhammad Akram, complainant, are that on 19.10.1996, he alongwith his other family members, namely, Muhammad Ramzan, Mst. Parsan, Muhammad Aslam, Abdul Wahid, Mst. Maroofan and Mst. Hameedan was present in the courtyard of the house, when at 5.00 p.m., Amanat All son of Nawab Din, Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Tufail, armed with daggers, Jan Muhammad armed with hatchet, Amanat Ali son of Nazar Din (appellant) armed with spear (BARCHHI), Ghulam Haider armed with BARCHHI, Muhammad Yaqoob-appellant armed with dagger and Ghulam Haider armed with knife trespassed into their house. The complainant party raised alarm which attracted Pathana and Muhammad Hanif to the spot. Amanat All son of Nawab Din caused a dagger blow on the back of father of the complainant just underneath his neck. Muhammad Shaft gave dagger blow on the right side of Ramzan's back.
Muhammad Yaqoob-appellant caused injury with dagger on the neck of Ramzan. Amanat All son of Nazar Din (appellant) caused BARCHHI blow on the left armpit of Ramzan. Muhammad Tufail gave dagger blow, hitting on the head of Ramzan. The complainant's father Ramzan fell on the ground. Abdul Waheed intervened to rescue the complainant's father Ramzan when Muhammad Yaqoobappellant gave a _dagger blow on the left side of the chest of Abdul Wahid, who also fell on the ground Amanant All alias Mani caused another blow with BARCHHI on the back of head of Abdul Wahid. Ghulam Haider gave BARCHHI blow, hitting complainant's mother on her right arm.
Ghulam Qadir caused injury with CHHURI on her right hand in between her thumb and index finger.
Pathanay Khan and Muhammad Hanif, PWs, rushed towards the scene of occurrence to rescue the complainant party from the clutches of the assailants, the accused made good their escape, alongwith their respective weapons, threatening with dire consequences if any would try to restrain them, he would met the same fate. Meanwhile, Ramzan and Abdul Wahid succumbed to their injuries at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Mst. Parsan Bibi, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Akram-the complainant and Muhammad Hanif.
4. The motive behind the occurrence was that five years prior to the occurrence, Muhammad Akram-complainant had purchased an Ihata measuring five marlas from one Hassan Din and the complainant party was in possession thereof since then. After the death of Hassan Din, his brother Makhan sold the said Ihata to Muhammad Shafi-accused one year earlier to the occurrence. The accused party demanded the vacant possession of the Ihata, which demanded, being unjustified, was declined by the complainant, as a result whereof the accused party committed the offence.
5. After registration of the formal FIR, Nasir Zia, SI/PW-11, proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared site-plan without scale Ex. PL; collected blood-stained earth from the places, where Ramzan and Abdul Wahid deceased were murdered, through memo Ex. PM & Ex. PN respectively; prepared injury statements of Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Akram and Mst. Parasan Bibi respectively as Ex. PQ, Ex. PR and Ex. PS and got them medically examined. He also prepared the injury statements Ex. PT and Ex. PV respectively of Abdul Wahid and Ramzan and after recording the statements of the PWs sent the dead bodies of both the deceased to the mortuary for post- mortem examination. After post-mortem examination, the investigating officer took into possession the last worn blood-stained clothes of Abdul Wahid consisting of shirt P-3, Chadar P-4 and vest P-5 through memo Ex. PB and that of Muhammad Ramzan consisting of Kurta P-1, Chadar P-2 vide memo Ex. PA. He also got prepared the site-plan Ex. PC and Ex. PC/1 by the Draftsman and recorded notes and drawings thereon. On 11.11.1996, the I0 arrested Amanat Ali, Muhammad Shaft, Amanat Ali alias Math-appellant, Muhammad Ramzan alias Jana, Muhammad Yaqoobappellant, Muhammad Tufail and Ghulam Haider. On 15.11.1996, Muhammad Yaqoob-appellant, while in custody, got recovered dagger P-7 lying underneath the iron box in his residential house and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PF. The also prepared the site-plan Ex. PF/1 with respect to the recovery of dagger from Muhammad Yaqoob appellant. After completion of investigation, he submitted the challan.
6. In order to prove its version at the trial, the prosecution produced fourteen witnesses in all After tendering in evidence the positive reports Ex. PAA pertaining to daggers, Ex. PBB with respect to earth, Ex. PDD in elation to Khangar and that of the Serologist Ex. PCC, the documents Ex. PEE, Ex. PFF, Ex. PGG, Ex. PHH, Ex. PJJ, Ex. PKK, Ex. PLL and Ex. PMM, the prosecution closed its case. Thereafter, the accused in their statements under Section 342 Cr.P..C. pleased their false implication.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant (Amanat Ali alias Mani), in support of this appeal, has submitted that according to the complainant of this case, he had got only two injuries with blunt weapon.and not with sharp edged weapon; that even the receipt of injuries has not been disclosed. The learned counsel submits that Muhammad Aslam PW had received only one injury on his chest, while the complainant has stated that he had 'received on the abdomen. That there is conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence; that the medical examination of both these eye-witnesses Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Aslam was conducted in DHQ Hospital, whereas it should have been conducted at RHC where the postmortem examination of the two deceased persons was conducted and there is no justification given by the prosecution in this regard; that no recovery was affected from Amanat alias Mani; that he was also found to be innocent during the investigation; that this very first plea was that he was present at Rawalpindi in connection with the illness of his sister; that Muhammad Hanif and Pathana, the independent witnesses, have not been produced; that the third eye-witness Mst. Parsan was not produced; that even the police reached at the spot after the occurrence had taken place, the dead bodies were lying in the courtyard and not on the ground. The learned counsel submits that according to the complainant, who is son of the deceased Muhammad Ramzan, in his presence, his father was given injuries by the accused persons but he did not step forward to rescue his father and remained silent spectator and same is the position of other PWs, namely, Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Parsan and two other daughters of the deceased, namely, Muhammad Ramzan; that as none of the accused received injuries, although the occurrence had taken place in the house of the complainant party, this shows that eye-witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence; that according to Muhammad Akram PW, the deceased received seven injuries but there were six injuries on his person; that no documentary evidence regarding purchase of Ihata was produced in the course of investigation; that Abdul Wahid deceased had no relationship with Muhammad Ramzan deceased or the complainant party but the complainant told a lie before the learned trial Court that he was his maternal uncle; that at the time of occurrence, Amanat Ali alias Mani appellant was 13/14 years of age and at the time of recording of his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., he was 17/18 years of age. Learned counsel submits that already in view of the order passed by the President of Pakistan, while granting remission to the minors before 17.12.2001, the death sentence has been converted into life-imprisonment and this benefit has also been given to the appellant Amanat Ali alias Mani; that on the same evidence, three accused have been acquitted by the learned trial Court; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt.
8. Learned counsel for Muhammad Yaqoob-appellant submits that there are material contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses; that there is contradiction in the ocular account and medical; that ocular evidence consists of related and interested witnesses and not confidence inspiring. As far as the recovery is concerned, according to the learned counsel, the dagger has been planted on the appellant and cannot be believed, as no independent witness in this regard was asked to join the investigation; that the appellant had no motive to join hands with his co-accused; that the behaviour of the PWs is unnatural and unbelievable; that there are mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant for lesser sentence; that only one injury was caused by the appellant without any repetition; and that he had denied the occurrence.
8A. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that it is a case of promptly lodged FIR; that at the time of occurrence, specific roles are attributed to the appellants; that both the parties are residents of the same locality; that three PWs were injured and two have been produced before the trial Court; that it is a case of double murder and then injuring three PWs; that inmates of the house of natural witnesses and the occurrence had taken place in the house of the complainant party. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution his proved its case beyond any doubt
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record.
10.As noted above, Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Ramzan and Ghulam Haider were acquitted, while the appellant alongwith three persons, namely, Amanat Ali son of Nawab Din, Muhammad Shafi and Ghulam Qadir was convicted and sentenced on different counts. The said convicts also filed Criminal Appeal No, 128/2000 and Criminal Revision No, 73/2000 was also filed by Muhammad Akram against Amanat Ali s/o Nawab Din, etc. The learned Judges of this Court vide order dated 24.11.2004 dismissed the criminal revision for the enhancement of sentence and .also disposed of the appeal filed by the three accused-appellants who were awarded life-imprisonment and also imprisonment under Section 324 PPC as far as Ghulam Haider was concerned, because the said convicts had already served out the sentence.
11. Now we are left with the case of Muhammad Yaqoob and Amanat Ali alias Math. The occurrence in this case took place in the house of Muhammad Akram on 19.10.1996. The matter was reported to the police at the police station on the same day. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence was 4 1/2 kilometres. It was the month of October and one can say that it was Assar Prayer time. It was a day-light occurrence. Two persons, namely, Muhammad Ramzan and Abdul Wahid, who were present in their house, had lost their lives and three persons Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Parsan, mother of the complainant, were injured. The prosecution witnesses Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Aslam PWs-7 and 8 respectively were injured. They were A medically examined. According to the doctor, the injuries were fresh. As far as Akram is concerned, the injury was on his chest. They fully supported the prosecution case. They both are residents of the same house. They are inmates of the house and natural witnesses. They have fully supported the prosecution case. It has been argued by the learned counsel for Amanant Ali alias Mani that he was 13/14 years of age at the time of occurrence and 17/18 years of age on the day when his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. was recorded. So he has already been given the benefit through the Presidential Order dated 17.12.2001 and his death sentence has already been converted into life-imprisonment. This fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the complainant that he was minor at the time of occurrence. So his death sentence is converted into life-imprisonment with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.
12. As far as Yaqoob appellant is concerned, specific role has been attributed to him. He alongwith his co-accused criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant party, while armed with dangerous weapons, and committed the murders of two persons and accused injuries to three eyewitnesses. There is no question of false implication whatsoever in the instant case. We believe the eye-witnesses, who are natural witnesses. The prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt. So he has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court.
13. As a sequel to the above, Criminal Appeal No, 74/2000 filed by Amanat Ali alias Mani is partly allowed, while Criminal Appeal No, 113 filed by Muhammad Yaqoob-appellant is dismissed.
Similarly, Criminal Appeal No, 156/2000 filed by Muhammad Akram complainant is also dismissed.
The Murder Reference qua Muhammad Yaqoob is answered in the affirmative his death sentence is confirmed, while it is answered in the negative as far as Amanat Ali alias Mani is concerned and his death sentence is not confirmed.