JUDGMENT MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJUM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.-Appellant Khadim Hussain was tried for the murder of his wife Mst. Zareena Bibi and mother in law Mst. Sardaran Bibi in case FIR No. 1142 dated 23.10.1998 registered under section 302 PPC at Police Station Jaranwala by the Sessions Judge, Faisalabad who vide judgment dated 13,7.2000 convicted the appellant under section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to death on two counts as well as to pay compensation amounting to Rs.
50,0000/- to the legal heirs of each deceased namely Mst. Zareena Bibi and Mst. Sardara Bibi or in default whereof to undergo six months R.I. On each count.
2. Challenging his conviction and sentence appellant filed Crl. Appeal NO. 189-J/2000 while the Trial Court has made a reference (M.R. No. 510/2000) seeking confirmation of death sentence awarded to the appellant.
3. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case as narrated in FIR lodged by Muhammad Riaz complainant PW. 10 are that on 23.10.1998 at about 9.00 a.m. On the call of Mst. Zareena Bibi deceased, Mst. Sardana Bibi visited her house to assist her daughter (Mst. Zareena Bibi deceased) in her domestic work and Mst. Sardaran Bibi was plastering the courtyard with clay when all of a sudden Khadim Hussain appellant came in the house and inquired from his wife Mst. Zareena Bibi deceased as to why she had called her mother in the house. On the reply of Mst. Zareena Bibi deceased that she had called her being her mother the accused became infuriated and fired three shots one after the others with his 12 bore gun (double barrel) which hit Mst. Sardaran Bibi on the chest, wrist of right arm, left arm and left shoulder. When Mst. Zareena bibi deceased stepped forward to rescuer her mother, the accused also fired hitting Mst. Zareena Bibi below the left side of chest. On the alarm raised by complainant (Muhammad Riaz PW. 10) Shaukat Ali PW. 11 and Akhtar Ali (given up PW) were also attracted to the spot and saw the occurrence.
Motive behina the occurrence was that Mst. Zareena Bibi in disobedience of her husband (Khadim Hussain accused) had called her mother for plastering with clay which caused annoyance to the accused who killed both the ladies.
4. After the registration of case and complying with legal formalities the Investigating Officer submitted challan before the Trial Court where prosecution produced twelve witnesses including Muhammad Riaz PW. 10 and Shaukat Ali PW. 11, the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, to prove the charge against the appellant.
5. Trial Court also examined the appellant under Section 342 Cr.P.C, who while answering to the question, why the P.Ws have deposed against you? Replied as under:- "Both the deceased were killed by unknown person and I have been falsely involved in the case as the complainant wants to usurp my moveable and immoveable property."
The appellant neither made any statement under section 340(2) Cr.P.C, nor produced any evidence in defence.
6. Trial Court after appraisal of evidence available on record, vide judgment dated 13.7.2000, convicted and sentenced the appellant as narrated earlier.
7., Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely involved in this case, he had cordial relations with his wife Mst. Zareena Bibi deceased, he never objected to the visit of his mother in law and there was no occasion for him to kill his on. Wife and mother in law. It is further submitted that complainant of this case who is father in law of the appellant has involved him in this case with mala fide intention in order to usurp the property of the appellant i.e. His house. Submits that no independent witness was produced by the prosecution in support of the case, there is no evidence to show that the weapon of offence allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant was ever used in the occurrence and that in the circumstances the Trial Court has erroneously convicted and sentenced the appellant. Conversely, learned counsel for the State while supporting the impugned judgment vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we have observed that it is a case of single accused who had committed the murder of his wife Mst. Zareena Bibi and mother in law namely Mst. Sardaran Bibi during the bright hours of the day i.e. On 23.10.1998 at 9.0 a.m. In his house. The matter was promptly reported to the police by Muhammad Riaz PW. 10 (father in law of the appellant) giving all the minor details of the occurrence on the same day at 11.30 a.m. The promptness in lodging the FIR rules out the possibility of concoction, fabrication and false implication of the appellant. At the relevant time Muhammad Riaz PW. 10 who is father in law of the appellant and a resident of the same area was present in the house of the appellant when this occurrence look place. His presence in the house of his daughter (place of occurrence) at the relevant time seems to be very natural and normal. He also stood test of lengthy and searching cross-examination and there is nothing in his statement to doubt his credibility or to say that he had any malice against his son in law to falsely involve him in this case. His statement also finds support from the evidence of Shaukat AN PW. 11 a resident of same area who on hearing the fire shot came at the spot and. Saw the appellant holding a delible barrel gun in his hand whereas Mst.
Sardaran Bibi and Mst. Zareena Bibi were lying on the ground in injured conditions. This witness is neither related to any of the party nor had any enmity against the appellant and is absolutely independent and disinterested witness. The ocular account further finds support from the medical evidence which reveals that both the ladies had died because of the firearm injuries as narrated by the' eye-witnesses. The location, duration and nature of injuries as narrated by the complainant find support from the post-mortem report prepared by Lady Dr. Farhat Rasheed Gorigha PW.
9. In a case of single accused substitution by kith and kin of the deceased is a rare phenomenon.
The false involvement of the appellant in this case for the murder of his on. Wife and mother in law by his father in law and other independent witnesses is out of question. The evidence available on record inspires confidence, rings true and in the circumstances we are persuaded to rely upon the same. Finding no force in the instant appeal the same stands dismissed.
Death sentence of the appellant on both counts is confirmed and the murder reference is answered in the affirmative.