' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIR, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,7/J of 2000 filed by Hazoor Bukhsh appellant who was convicted and sentenced to death on two counts for committing the qatl-e-amd of Muhammad Iqbal and Mst. Bharawan. The conviction and sentence was recorded vide judgment, dated 15-12-1999 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanpur.
' Murder Reference No,187 of 2000 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of convict appellant shall also be replied through this single judgment.
2. Occurrence in this case had taken place at 8 a.m. On 4-6-1995 within the revenue estate of mauza Kohar Markand which is at a distance of 21 kilometers from Police Station Sadar, District Rajanpur. The occurrence was reported to the Police by Malik Bahadur through written complaint Exh. PD at 10 a.m. On the same day at mauza Shikarpur and the formal F.I.R. Exh. PD/1 was recoded at 11.05 a.m. By Abdul Qayyum, H.C.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that at about 8 a.m. On 4-6-1995, Muhammad ,Iqbal son of Malik Bahadur complainant was grazing the cattle when Bilal Hussain son of the complainant and Bashir Ahmad were thrashing the wheat crop. Within their view, Hazoor Bukhsh armed with hatchet and Abdul Majeed empty-handed emerged and Hazoor Bukhsh caused hatchet blows which landed on the head, neck and right flank of Muhammad Iqbal. The witnesses tried to haul up the accused Hazoor but he managed escape. They chased the accused who when reached near to his house, also caused injuries with hatchet on the person of Mst. Bharawan, his wife who was sitting under a tree. Both the injured succumbed to their injuries at the spot.
' The motive alleged was that the appellant had suspicion of illicit relations between Muhammad Iqbal and Mst. Bharawan.
4. Syed Roshin Din Shah S.-I. (P.W.13) took over the investigation. He after sending the complaint.
Exh. PD to Police Station for registration of formal F.I.R., went to the spot, inspected the dead-body of Muhammad Iqbal, prepared injury statement Exh.PG/4, the inquest report Exh.PG/3; he also inspected the dead-body of Mst. Bharawan, prepared her injury statement Exh.PF/4, inquest report Exh.PF/3 and then sent both the dead-bodies to the mortuary. The bloodstained earth was taken into possession from two places through memos. Exh.PH and Exh.PJ. The rough site-plans are Exh.PK and Exh.PL. Hazoor Bukhsh accused was arrested on 1-7-1995. He while in custodygot recovered hatchet P.5 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PI. After completion of the formal investigation, both the accused were sent to face the trial.
5. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 14 witnesses in all. The learned DDA tendered in evidence reports of the Chemical Examiner Exh.PO, Exh.PP, Exh.PQ, reports of the Serologist Exh. PR, Exh.PS, Exh.PT and closed the case of prosecution. The accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Pleaded grave and sudden provocation. However, after conclusion of the trial, acquitted Abdul Majeed while convicted and sentenced Hazoor Bukhsh as stated above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was husband of Mst. Bahrawan and he having seen her and other deceased Muhammad Iqbal in compromising position committed the murder under grave and sudden provocation. For this submission, he has referred to the statements of P.Ws. 7 and 10. Further submits that the story coined up by the prosecution is unbelievable. According to learned counsel, it is a case of two versions and the versions put forth by the appellant is more plausible and near to the truth. Next submits that there are material contradictions in the statements of the P.Ws. With regard to recovery of blood-stained hatchet, learned counsel submits that no independent witness was joined with the same and it is not believable.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that dead-bodies of both the deceased as well as the blood-stained earth were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from two different places. Further submits that it was not a case of grave and sudden provocation rather the appellant committed premediated murder of two innocent persons merely on suspicion of illicit relations.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence with their able assistance. In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place at 8 a.m. On 4-6-1995 while the matter was reported to the Police at 10 a.m. On the same day though distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is 21 kilometers. The appellant has admitted the occurrence of having murdered the two deceased but under grave and sudden provocation. The only point begging determination in this case is whether it was a premeditated murder or the act was done under grave and sudden provocation. The accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. While giving reply to the question "why this case against you" submitted as under:-- "I am innocent in this case, Iqbal deceased was Zani. He and Mst. Bharawan my wife had illicit relation with each other. On the day of occurrence I came back to my home, I found my wife missing. I became surprise. In the meantime, I found Muhammad Iqbal and my wife Mst. Bharawan under the shade of Beree tree in the Jund in pardelicto position. I lost my control and under the impulse of grave and sudden provocation killed both the Zanies. I had committed no offence. No P.W. Was present at that time. I myself went to the Police Station along with my hatchet and surrendered myself before the police. After this the Police with the collusion with the complainant concocted this false story and recoveries."
' To prove the above quoted version the appellant except his bald statement did not produce any evidence on record rather the defence in the very first line of cross-examination of Farid Bukhsh, Patwari (P.W.1) brought on record that distance between the place of murder of Iqbal deceased and of Mst. Bharawan deceased is about six squares. The bloodstained earth was taken into possession from two different places. The post-mortem examination on the dead-body of deceased Bharawan was conducted by Dr. Muhammad Ayub Malik P.W.10. Vaginal swabs were sent for analysis to the Chemical' Examiner. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Exh.P.M.
According to said report, the swa bs were not stained with semen. It was not the case of appellant that when he found the two deceased in a compromising position, he firstly assaulted deceased Iqbal while Mst. Bharawan ran away, she was chased and then done to death. In this view of the matter, we are fully satisfied that it was not a case of grave and sudden provocation and the story set by the appellant is afterthought rather the appellant with premeditation killed two innocent persons merely on the basis of suspicion.
' The story set up by the prosecution is also corroborated by the recovery of hatchet which according to report of the Serologist was stained with human blood.
' Malik Bahadur (complainant), father of Iqbal deceased died before commencement of the trial.
Bilal Hussain his son and real brother of deceased Iqbal appeared as P.W.11. Bashir Ahmad, real brother of deceased Mst. Bharawan also appeared as P.W.12. Both these P.Ws. Have fully supported the case of prosecution. They had no animus against the appellant.
' For the discussion made above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant to its hilt beyond any shadow of doubt. Appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded against him by the trial Court vide the impugned judgment is maintained in toto. The death B sentence is thus confirmed and Murder Reference is answered in the affirmative.