' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---The appellant, namely, Amjad Masih son of Boota Masih was charged for the murder of Muhammad Sarwar, paternal nephew of Muhammad Ibrahim (complainant). The trial was before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gojra Camp at Toba Tek Singh, who by virtue of his judgment dated 18-11-1999 found him guilty of the said charge, convicted him under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to death with further direction to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation as envisaged by the provisions of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. Murder Reference No. 477 of 1999 seeks confirmation of said sentence of death awarded to Amjad Masih-convict, whereas he by filing Criminal Appeal No.203/J of 2005 has called in question conviction and sentence passed against him by the said learned Judge. We propose to dispose of the both these matters together through this judgment.
3. The event giving rise to the charge occurred on 3-3-1997 at 11-35 a.m. Within the revenue estate of Chak No.349/GB, situate at a distance of nine miles from Police Station Rajana, District Toba Tek Singh, whereas Muhammad Ibrahim complainant (P.W.8), paternal uncle of Muhammad Sarwar deceased, reported the 4. matter to Muhammad Siddique, S.-I. (P.W.10), by making an application (Exh.Pi) on the same day at 12-15 noon, when he was available at Darbar Haider Shah, Chak No.339/GB, whereupon the latter sent the same to the police station through a constable. On receipt thereof, Ghulam Sarwar, MHC drew up formal F.I.R. (Exh.PI/I) on the same day at 1-00 p.m.
4. The case of the prosecution as it unfurled in the F.I.R. (Exh.PI/I) was that the complainant after getting retirement from the Army came to the village and started cultivation; his paternal nephew Muhammad Sarwar son of Muhammad Ramzan was employed as Salesman at Bismillah Petroleum, Khekha Road, in the area of Chak No.349/GB; the appellant had visiting terms with Muhammad Sarwar, on 2-3-1997 too, the appellant had come to Muhammad Sarwar and had demanded money from him, however, the latter declined to oblige and asked him not to come again, whereupon the appellant had left; on the fateful day, about 11-30 a.m., the complainant along with Muhammad Hussain son of Imam Din and Muhammad Yasin son of Muhammad Saleem was sitting on a cot at Bismillah Petroleum and they were busy in conversation; Muhammad Sarwar went to the Barsin crop to urinate, when the appellant came there while carrying a revolver and exhorted a Lalkara addressing Muhammad Sarwar that he would kill him; simultaneously the appellant fired a revolver shot hitting Muhammad Sarwar on the front in his chest; the appellant extended a threat that anybody coming forward would be shot at and while brandishing his revolver fled from the scene; Muhammad Sarwar succumbed to his injury instantaneously; leaving Muhammad Boota son of Jalal Din, Muhammad Ashraf son of Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Latif son of Noor Muhammad at the spot to guard the dead body, the complainant left for the police station and came across Muhammad Siddique, S.-I. And reported the matter. Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded as aforementioned.
5. Investigation in this case had been carried out by Muhammad Siddique, S.-I. (P.W.10), who immediately after registration of the case reached the venue of occurrence and inspected the spot as well as the dead body of the deceased. He prepared injury statement (Exh.PH) and inquest report (Exh.PF) of Muhammad Sarwar deceased and dispatched the dead body to the mortuary for autopsy under the escort of Muzaffar Iqbal, constable (P.W.2). He collected blood-stained soil from the spot, made it into a sealed parcel and took the same into possession through memo. Exli.PD, which was duly attested by Muhammad Sadiq (P.W.6) and Haji Muhammad Azhar, P.W. (not produced). He also prepared rough site-plan (Exh.PJ). On the same day; Muzaffar Iqbal, constable (P.W.2) produced before him the last-worn clothes of the deceased, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PB. He got prepared site-plan of the place of occurrence in duplicate (Exh.PC & PC/1) from Altaf Hussain, Patwari (P.W.5). He recorded statements of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 31-3-1997, he arrested the appellant and from his personal search a revolver .32 bore (P1) along with two live bullets (P2/1-2) stood recovered, which were taken into possession through memo. Exh.PA, duly attested by Muhammad Ilyas, C.No.119 (P.W.1) and Muhammad Ilyas, C .
No.518 (not produced). After finalization of investigation, he prepared challan against the appellant and submitted the same to the Court for his trial in accordance with law.
6. On receipt thereof, the learned trial Judge after completing all legal formalities framed the charge and put the same to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Thereafter, the prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as eleven witnesses, namely, Muhammad Ilyas, Constable (P.W.1), Muzaffar Iqbal, Constable (P.W.2), Abdullah (P.W.3), Ali Muhammad (P.W.4), Altaf Hussain, Patwari (P.W.5), Muhammad Sadiq (P.W.6), Dr. Aftab Ahmad (P.W.7), Muhammad Ibrahim complainant (P.W.8), Muhammad Yasin (P.W.9), Muhammad Siddique, S.-I. (P.W.10) and Ghulam Sarwar, MHC (P.W.11). Out of the whole lot, evidence of Muhammad Ilyas, constable (P.W.1), Dr. Aftab Ahmad (P.W.7), Muhammad Ibrahim complainant (P.W.8), Muhammad Yasin (P.W.9) and Muhammad Siddique, S.-I. (P.W.10) is of great significance, whereas that of remaining witnesses is of formal nature.
' Muhammad Ilyas, Constable (P.W.1) was associated with the recovery proceedings by the Investigating Officer. In his presence, revolver .32 bore along with two live bullets stood recovered from the appellant, which was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer through memo.
Exh.PA.
' Dr. Aftab Ahmad, M.0 (P.W.7) performed autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Sarwar deceased and observed one fire-arm injury on his person, which reads as under:-- "Fire-arm entry wound 3/4 x 1/2 c.m. Over the sternum with corresponding exit would 1 x 3/4 c.m. On the back of upper chest near the middle line of left side."
' According to him, he had died due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from the said injury, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
' Muhammad Ibrahim complainant (P.W.8) and Muhammad Yasin (P.W.9) are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They had also reiterated the story of the F.I.R. And had fully supported the case.
' Muhammad Siddique, S.-I. (P.W.10), Investigating Officer of the case, had stated about the acts done and duties performed by him during the course of investigation.
7. The learned Prosecutor after tendering in evidence the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist (Exh.PJ/2 and PK) respectively closed the case.
8. At this stage, all the incriminating material was put to the appellant by the learned trial Court while recording his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he refuted the charge brought against him and proclaimed his absolute innocence in the matter. While answering the question "Why this case against you and why the P. Ws. Have deposed against you", he stated that he had been falsely involved in this case and that "the prosecution witnesses were interlinked with each other". He had neither opted to make statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor did he produce any evidence in defence.
9. After hearing both the sides and considering totality of facts and circumstances revolving around this matter, the learned trial Court pronounced verdict of guilt against the appellant as aforementioned.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that Muhammad Ibrahim complainant (P.W.8) being related to the deceased and Muhammad Yasin (P.W.9) being owner of the petrol pump, where the deceased was employee, are interested witnesses, therefore, the evidence furnished by them was not strong, trustworthy and confidence-inspiring; that it was an unseen occurrence and the appellant has been falsely involved in this case; that the revolver allegedly recovered from the appellant had been planted upon him; that the said revolver had not been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, therefore, its recovery had lost sanctity; that no empty had been recovered from the scene of occurrence by the Investigating Officer, therefore, the recovery of revolver as crime weapon was defective and that the motive alleged in the F.I.R. Had not been proved by the witnesses. In the alternative, the learned counsel submitted that it was a case of single shot, there was no previous animosity between the two sides and motive was weak, so the appellant deserves lesser penalty.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State strenuously argued that presence of the witnesses at the spot was natural; that they had no reason to depose falsely against the appellant to involve him wrongly in this case; that the mere relationship of one of the witnesses with the deceased can hardly be considered a valid ground for disbelieving him and that it was a case of promptly lodged F.I.R., for a daylight occurrence in which name of the appellant had been mentioned with specific role played by him, so he stood rightly punished.
12. We have consciously considered the respective arguments of learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the material evidence available on the record. We find that it is a case of promptly lodged F.I.R. The incident had occurred on 3-3-1997 at 11-35 a.m. In the area of Chak No.349/GB, situate at a distance of nine miles from the police station concerned. Muhammad Ibrahim complainant (P.W.8), paternal uncle of Muhammad Sarwar deceased had reported the incident to Muhammad Siddique, S.-I., who came across the former at Darbar Haider Shah, Chak No.339/GB on the same day at 12-15 p.m. Within a short span of time. As F.I.R. Stood registered without unnecessary loss of time, so any chance of entering into deliberations and consultations with others to involve the appellant wrongly is excluded. In the first information report, all material details of the occurrence had been elaborately explained. As the appellant had been on visiting terms with the deceased, so he was fully known to the witnesses.
13. It is true that Muhammad Ibrahim complainant (P.W.8) was paternal uncle of Muhammad Sarwar deceased and Muhammad Yasin (P.W.9) was owner of the Petrol Pump, where the deceased was an employee. Occurrence had taken place in the Barsin crop near the petrol pump, where both the eye-witnesses were sitting on a cot and were busy in talking, so their presence at the spot at the relevant time of occurrence cannot be doubted. We have examined all relevant facts and circumstance and have not been able to discover a single circumstance relying on which, we may say that the witnesses were not available at the spot.
14. Prosecution in order to prove its case and version propounded in the F.I.R. Produced Muhammad Ibrahim complainant and Muhammad Yasin (P.Ws. 8 and 9), respectively. The critical analysis of their evidence reveals that the appellant came at the venue of occurrence while carrying a revolver and pronounced a Lalkara addressing Muhammad Sarwar deceased that he would kill him and then simultaneously fired a shot at Muhammad Sarwar, which struck him on front of his chest. They both witnessed the occurrence while sitting at the petrol pump and did not intervene due to fear. The ocular account and the medical evidence support each other on all material points.
15. It has been observed that neither any defence has been introduced in the cross-examination of the witnesses nor had the appellant while being examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Taken any specific plea. In reply to the question "Why this case against you and why the P.Ws. Have deposed against you", all that he had to say was as under:-- "I was falsely involved in this case. The P.Ws. Were interlinked with each other and they deposed falsely against me."
He produced no evidence in defence and even no person from his Bradari had bothered to appear before the police or the trial Court to depose in his favour to depose about his so-called false involvement. The prosecution story had been proved through statements of the eyewitnesses, whose presence at the spot cannot be doubted because they both belonged the place where the occurrence had taken place. They are natural witnesses and cannot be termed as chance witnesses. Statements of both the eye-witnesses tally with each other. There was no material discrepancy or contradiction of potential nature to cause annihilation of the prosecution evidence.
The ocular account furnished by the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence fully supported the prosecution version, which deserves full credence being genuine and legitimate.
16. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the motive has not been proved satisfactorily is concerned, it is well-settled that lack of motive altogether or inability of prosecution to prove the same for murder does not affect the imposition of normal penalty of death in a murder case, if the prosecution otherwise has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reference may advantageously be made to the case of Nawaz Ali and another v. The State (2001 SCM R 726). The other argument of the learned counsel that the appellant had fired a single shot and had not repeated the same, so he deserves reduction in the sentence has no force because he while carrying a revolver had come at the scene fully prepared and had fired a shot in the chest of the deceased, which proved fatal, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. Reference can profitably be made to the case of Arshad Ali alias Achhu v. The State (2002 SCM R 1806).
17. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no empty stood recovered from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer, we may observe here that the appellant was carrying a revolver in his hand at the relevant time of occurrence and had used the same once. We also know that empties are ejected from a pistol and not from a revolver. In this case, weapon deployed by the appellant was a revolver, so there was no question of availability of empties at the spot, because empties do not fall out of barrel of a revolver.
18. After taking everything into our full consideration and studying the case from all angles, we are fully satisfied with the guilt of the appellant, who had committed the murder of an innocent person.
Both the eye-witnesses had provided a true and undiluted account of the occurrence and their evidence has inspired our confidence. We also fail to find any mitigating factor floating on the surface of evidence.
19. For what has been discussed above, we maintain conviction of the appellant and dismiss his appeal.
20. Death sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Judge is confirmed and Murder Reference is answered in the affirmative.