' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This case revolves around three real but unfortunate brothers, namely Haji Hidayatullah, Haji Bashir Ahmad and Haji Allah Ditta. In an occurrence which had taken place at about 2-00/3-00 a.m. During the night between the 14th and 15th of April, 1999, the above mentioned Haji Hidayatullah; his wife Mst. Said Mari; his five daughters, namely, Mst. Shehnaz Mai (aged 12/13 years) Mst. Safia Bibi (aged 23/24 years), Mst. Ruqia Bibi (aged 14/15 years), Mst.
Parveen Bibi (aged 6/7 years) and Mst. Sumaira Bibi (aged only two years), and his three sons namely, Irshad (aged 15/16 years), Habib (aged 25 years) and Jumshaid (aged 8/9 years) were murdered along with the above mentioned other brother, namely, Haji Bashir Ahmed, his son Abdul Majid and a son of his son Abdul Majid, namely, Umar Hayat (aged about 3/4 years). Through an F.I.R. Bearing No,106 dated 15-4-1999 of Police Station Sarai Sidhu of District Khanewal the above mentioned third brother, namely, Allah Ditta and his five sons, namely, Khuda Bakhsh, Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Akbar were accused of having killed the said 13 persons. Allah Ditta accused, however, died before the conclusion of the trial.
2. Through a judgment dated 26-1-2000 the learned Sessions Judge, Khanewal found all the five brothers guilty of the charge; convicted each one of them, inter alia, under section 302, P.P.C. And punished each one of them with death on thirteen counts.
3. On an appeal filed by them in the Lahore High Court, Akbar accused was acquitted of all the charges to which extent Criminal Appeal No,59 of 2000 filed by the said five convicts was allowed but the said appeal was, however, dismissed to the extent of the other four convicts, namely, Khuda Bakhsh, Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Asghar whose sentences of death were consequently confirmed in pursuance of Murder Reference No,162 of 2000.
4. This petition before us by the said four convict-brothers impugns the above noticed judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 7-2-2005 passed in the said Criminal Appeal No,59 of 2000 and the above-noticed conviction and punishments recorded against them.
5. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners at some length and have also perused the record in the light of the submissions made by him.
6. The questions to which our attention was drawn were whether there was any possibility of the occurrence in question which had taken place in the dark hours of the night having gone un- witnessed; whether Ghulam Shabbir complainant (P.W.9) and Noor Ahmed (P.W.10) could have witnessed the said occurrence, whether the said two eye-witnesses could have identified the assailants and whether there was any motive for the four convict-petitioners to commit the crime in question?
7. As has been noticed above, thirteen persons including six females had been butchered to death with sharp-edged weapons. Killing of such a large number of persons with sharp-edged weapons could not have been accomplished in the flash of an eye and the occurrence, therefore, would have continued for quite some time. Since the actual killers were four in number, therefore, they could not have murdered all the thirteen deceased persons simultaneously. The ones attacked in the first instance would have moaned, cried, writhed and rolled which would have obviously awakened the ones whose turn came later and those attacked later would have obviously raised alarm seeking help and intervention. The conclusion that such a situation would have attracted people to the scene of occurrence would thus, be an irresistible and un-exceptionable finding.
Therefore, the concurrent finding of the two learned Courts that the occurrence in question could A not have gone un-witnessed and the culprits could not have escaped unidentified could not be said to be an unreasonable or an unbelievable inference.
8. Ghulam Shabbir complainant (P.W.9) resided in a house only 40 Karams away from the place of occurrence which would mean about. 200 ft. And in the circumstances the complainant being attracted to the spot on account of the cries of the victim and the alarm raised by them would be a highly probable phenomenon. Noor Ahmed (P.W.10) claimed to be present in the house of Ghulam Shabbir complainant and this is how he explained having reached the spot and having witnessed the commission of the crime in question. Ghulam Shabbir complainant was a natural witness of the occurrence as he was a resident of the vicinity of the place of occurrence and it could not be said that the alarm raised by thirteen persons would not be audible at a distance of 200 feet and that also in the dead of the night which is the most silent part of a night.
9. He was not related to the deceased party nor could he be shown to have any reason or which could have prompted him to maliciously implicate such close relatives of the deceased party as the perpetrators of the crime in question. Similar was the position of Noor Ahmed (P.W.10). Both of them were thus independent witnesses of the occurrence whose testimony was found credible and reliable by the two learned Courts i,e, the learned trial Judge was the Honourable Appellate Court.
10. As has been mentioned above, the convicts were no strangers to Ghulam Shabbir complainant and in the circumstances of identification of the assailants even during the night time could not have posed any problem to the complainant and moreso when the occurrence would have lasted for quite some time.
11. There is another aspect of the matter which is one Mst. Daulat Mai. She was the mother-in-law of Haji Hidayatullah deceased and thus, the mother of Mst. Said Mai deceased and the grandmother of the eight deceased children of Haji Hidayatullah. Her other daughter was the wife of Allah Ditta accused (since dead) and thus, she was also the grandmother of the four convicts before us. In spite of the fact that it was on record that she had reached the place of occurrence during or immediately after the crime in question had been committed in which occurrence her daughter, her eight grand-children and her son-in-law had been murdered and in which crime his other son-in-law, and her five grand-children from his other daughter had been implicated, she never ever raised any protest regarding the false involvement of her son-in-law and her five grand- children during the course of the investigation nor did she even appear at the trial to claim innocence of her said four grand children facing death penalty. The silence of Mst. Daulat Mai was rightly considered as a strong circumstance corroborating the prosecution case. Recovery of blood-stained weapons of offence and blood-stained clothes of the four petitioners were further facts which offered support to the ocular testimony, if at all any corroboration was needed.
Needless to add that the medical evidence also corroborated the eye-witness account.
12. Some argument was attempted to be made with respect to the motive which could have led the four petitioners to the murder of thirteen deceased persons. It is true that no details of the land dispute had been mentioned in the F.I.R. But the explanation offered for the same by the prosecution was quite convincing because the complainant was not a member of the unfortunate family and could thus, not be expected to know any details of the said dispute. It was rightly pointed out by the two learned Courts that it was the defence itself which, through cross- examination of the Investigating Officer, had brought out the details of the said dispute on record which details had not been seriously controverted by the defence i,e, the accused party having a grouse against Haji Hidayatullah deceased having illegally secured transfer of 173 Kanals of land of Allah Ditta accused in his name. It was, therefore, rightly held by the two learned Courts that a valid reason had E come on record which could have led the petitioners to the commission of the crime in question.
13. Relying upon some concession made by the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the bodies of some of the deceased persons, it was submitted that all the deceased persons could have been done to death while asleep. Such an opinion of the doctor was rightly discharged by the learned Courts because, as has been noticed above, the four assailants could not have done the thirteen deceased persons to death simultaneously and while the ones attacked first could have been killed while lying down but the others who were assaulted later would obviously have woken up when the ones attacked earlier were being injured and butchered and thus, the opinion that all thirteen were done to death while asleep, was not plausible.
14. Having thus, examined all aspects of the matter, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings of guilt recorded against the four F petitioners. The conviction as recorded against them is, therefore, maintained.
15. The learned Advocat Supreme Court for the petitioners finally prayed for lenient treatment for the four petitioners who were real brothers and who had been ordered to be hanged to death.
16. We are surprised at this prayer. As has been noticed above, the four petitioners had doneetheir two unless and all their descendants to death including children of 2 to 25 years of age. This was a dastardly crime committed by them and the perpetrators of such a crime deserved no mercy.
17. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. .