Abdul Hameed Dogar, J.--This Jail Petition is directed against judgment dated 28.4.2003 passed by a. learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby Criminal Appeal No, 176 of 1995 filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court were maintained.
2. Briefly, stated, the facts of the case are that prior to the occurrence, Jan Muhammad deceased contracted second marriage with Mst. Ghulam Jannat, the sister of petitioner Khurshid after the death of his first wife Mst. Nawaban, mother of Mst. Bashiran. 4/5 days prior to the occurrence petitioner came to the Chak No, 41/EB on leave from Murree where he was serving. He wanted to take his wife Mst. Bashiran alongwith him to Murree but Jan Muhammad and Mst. Ghulam Jannat did not agree with his idea as Mst. Bashiran was not mentally matured but they compelled-the petitioner to take his wife to his village. On 27.3.1993 an altercation also took place but the matter was patched up by PW Ghulam Farid. On the same day at 11.30 a.m. petitioner while armed with a rifle entered the house of Jan Muhammad and raised a lalkara that today nobody will be spared.
Complainant Khurshid and PW Ghulam Farid tried to catch the petitioner. In the meanwhile Jan Muhammad tried to run outside to save himself petitioner fired two shots upon Jan Muhammad who fell down and died on the spot. Petitioner also fired at Mst. Bashiran who also died inside the Ihata of Muhammad Siddique Jabhail. He then fired at Mst. Saima and Mst. Nasim in the same Ihata and killed them. In the meanwhile Mst. Ghulam Jannat in order to save her, life and that of her children, namely, Mst. Parveen and Sharif entered the house of Shahra Pawali and bolted' he door from inside but the petitioner fired at the door and opened it and fired and Mst. Ghulam Jannat and her two children. The petitioner also fired at complainant Khurshid and Ghulam Farid and then fled away from the spot. Three injured, namely, Naseem, Khurshid complainant and his son Farid were shifted to Civil Hospital, Qaboola Sharif where Naseem succumbed to the injuries. The matter was reported by complainant Khurshid at Police Station Qaboola Sharif, District Sahiwal.
3. Autopsy on the dead bodies of Mst. Naseem, Mst. Ghulam Jannat, Mst. Bashiran, Jan Muhammad, Saima, Parveen and Muhammad Sharif was conducted by Dr. Muhammad Sabir Chaudhry (PW-3) and had mentioned the injuries on each of them in his post-mortem report and had opined that all the seven deceased were killed with a fire-arm weapon.
4. Petitioner was arrested on 27.3.1993. He led to the recovery .7 MM rifle which was taken into possession and after completion of the investigation, he was sent up to face trial.
5. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 05 PWs in all.
6. The petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. took the plea which is as under: "I was married with Mst. Bashiran daughter of Jan Muhammad and my sister Mst. Ghulam Jannat was married with Jan Muhammad who had five children. My in-law's were not sending my wife with me. Through Hameed Hinjra they sent my wife with me. Afterward I was posted at Murree. I came back to my village to bring my wife. I asked my in-laws that they should send Mst. Bashiran with me to Murree where I was posted. They refused, I went to Hameed Hinjra before this incident and on his intervention my wife was sent to my house in the village. For the second time, I sought his help on the refusal of my in-laws. He told me that my in-laws were not sending my wife with me because they were running a brothel in their house. Wife of Ghulam Farid, my sister, my wife Mst.
Bashiran, Ghulam Jannat, Mst. Bushra and the wife of Ghulam Farid PW were being used for prostitution and on that I quarreled with Hameed Hinjra that he was telling a lie. At this Abdul Razzaq and Sharif, the neighbours of Hameed Hinjra came there. I then came to the house of my in-laws, where I met Jan Muhammad, Khurshid and Ghulam Farid and asked why they were not sending my wife to Murree and told them that they were refusing because they were running a brothel in their house upon which they insulted and humiliated me and confirmed that they were running a brothel and that I should have no concern with their activities. They also admitted that the children of Mst. Ghulam Jannat were also illegitimate and they threatened and ousted me from the house. I lost my temper and passions and under the stress of grave and sudden provocation, I killed seven persons and injured Khurshid and his son Ghulam Farid who were supported Jan Muhammad. I was carrying rifle with me because at the time of this occurrence, I had got enmity in the village. With this rifle, I committed the murders and injured two persons".
He, however, neither examined himself on Oath, as required under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor led any evidence in defence.
7. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 18.9.1993 convicted the petitioner under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to death as Qisas on seven counts. He was also convicted under Section 324 PPC and sentenced to ten years on two counts with a fine of Rs, fifty thousand on two counts or in default to suffer one year R.I. more. In case of realization of fine, Rs, 50,000/- each shall be paid to injured PWs Khurshid and Ghulam Farid. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred appeal before the learned High Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
8. We have heard Sh. Muhammad Saleem, learned ASC for the petitioner and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
9. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned judgment is erroneous and unsustainable in law. He maintained that the ocular evidence is contradicted by the medical evidence and suffers from material discrepancies. He pointed out that the case of the prosecution is based on interested and inimical evidence, as such, it requires independent corroboration which is lacking in this case. According to him it was an unseen incident and there is no independent witness produced at trial to substantiate the case., 10.From the stage of framing of the charge, .the petitioner has all along admitted to have killed namely, Jan Muhammad, Mst. Ghulam Jannat, Mst. Bashiran, Mst. Saima, Mst. Parveen, Muhammad Sharif and Mst. Nasim due to `Ghairat' as deceased used to run brothel in their house where his wife Mst. Bashiran was also residing who was not allowed to go with him to Murree. It would be pertinent to reproduce the admission of guilt made by him at the time of framing of charge: "I deny the charge but I want to explain certain facts. I was married to Mst. Bashiran and her parents were adamant to send her with me. I am a soldier. I came to know that Jan Muhammad, Ghulam Farid and Khurshid son of Rukan Din had opened a brothel in the house and my wife Mst.
Bashiran, my sister Ghulam Jannat and Mst. Bushra wife of Ghulam Farid PW were being used for the purpose of prostitution. I felt it my insult and out of `Ghairat' picked a .7 MM rifle and killed all these 7 persons, namely, Jan Muhammad, Mst, Bashiran, Mst. Ghulam Jannat, Mst. Saima, Muhammad Sharif, Mst. Parveen and Met. Nasim and injured Khurshid and Ghulam Farid PWs who tried to run away. I fired at them and they were injured. Being a bashful man I have committed these murders and have injured the above said two persons.
11.To substantiate the above plea, the petitioner neither examined. himself on Oath nor produced any evidence to the above stance. When examined this plea in juxtaposition to the case of the prosecution, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the prosecution stands at better footing and truthful and confidence inspiring. The ocular evidence of injured witnesses, namely, Khurshid complainant and Ghulam Farid is fully corroborated by motive, medical evidence and the evidence of recovery of .7 MM and its matching with empties recovered from the place of occurrence. A There being concurrent findings of two Courts below we do not find any justification to interfere with the same. Learned counsel for petitioner though argued at length yet could not refer to a single extenuating circumstance to take lenient view in the matter. The cruel, gruesome and brutal manner in which petitioner has taken the lives of seven deceased and seriously injured the PWs namely Khurshid and Ghulam Farid does not deserve any leniency. The learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment to warrant interference by this Court.
12.For what has been stated above, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.