' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Liaquat Ali appellant was convicted on two counts of an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. Vide judgment dated 12-4-2000 handed down by the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh and was sentenced to death on each count and to pay a sum of Rs,50,000 to the heirs of the two deceased respectively on each count by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Through the same judgment a co-convict of the appellant namely Shafqat had also been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court for offences under sections 324 and 337-F(iii), P.P.C. But it appears that the said convict had not filed any appeal against his convictions and sentences before this Court. The learned trial Court had acquitted the appellant's co-accused namely Mst. Saidan Bibi and Muhammad Imran. Liaqat Ali appellant has challenged his convictions and sentences before this Court through Criminal Appeal No,95-J of 2000 which has been heard by us along with Murder Reference No,111 of 2000 seeking confirmation of the sentence of death passed against him by the learned trial Court. We propose to decide both these matters together through the present consolidated judgment.
2. The prosecution's case unfolded in the F.I.R. Was that Mst. Sardaran Bibi complainant was a resident of Chak No,184/GB, Rajana situated within the area of Police Station Rajana, District Toba Tek Singh and she was living with her brother namely Zulfiqar Khan for the last about nine years due to her estrangement with her husband. There was a tube-well situated near the house of Zulfiqar Khan of which the said Zulfiqar Khan was a co-owner. At about 6-00 p.m. On 1-7-1998 Shafqat convict, a son of Liaqat Ali appellant, aged about 15/16 years and Ghulam Murtaza, a son of Zulfiqar Khan, aged about 10/11 years were taking a bath in the water of the said tube-well and they started quarrelling with each other. Upon hearing the noise made by them the complainant's brother namely Zulfiqar Khan, his nephew namely Ghulam Mustafa and his wife namely Mst. Abida Bibi came to the said tube-well from their nearby house and Zulfiqar Khan asked Shafqat convict to go home but the latter started abusing Zulfiqar Khan. Zulfiqar Khan then pushed Shafqat convict whereupn he fell down and started raising hue and cry. Upon hearing the hue and cry of Shafqat convict his father namely Liaquat Ali appellant, armed with a gun .12 bore, Mst. Saidan Bibi, wife of Liaquat Ali appellant, and Imran another son of Liaquat Ali appellant, came to the spot armed with Sotas from their house situated two Killas away. Mst. Saidan Bibi accused then gave a Sota blow on the right side of the head of Zulfiaqr Khan. When Ghulam Mustafa caught hold of that Sota Liaquat Ali appellant fired a shot from his gun hitting Ghulam Mustafa on his right flank. Upon receipt of that injury Ghulam Mustafa fell down. Zulfiqar Khan lunged forward to get hold of Liaquat Ali appellant but the appellant fired at him hitting him on his left flank. Upon receipt of that injury Zulfiqar Khan also fell down. Imran accused then gave a Sota blow on the fallen Zulfiqar Khan hitting him on his chest. Shafqat convict took out a carbine .12 bore from underneath his clothes which he had taken off for the purpose of bathing and fired at Mst. Abida Bibi which missed her but a few pellets of the same grazed through her right shoulder. The hue and cry raised by the complainant party attracted Nasir Khan and Mazhar Abbas P.Ws. Who were available nearby and the said witnesses also saw the occurrence with their own eyes. The said witnesses then separated the parties and the accused party left the spot. The injured persons were then removed to the hospital but Zulfiqar Khan succumbed to his injuries on the way. Ghulam Mustafa was got admitted to Civil Hospital, Toba Tek Singh. Upon receipt of information regarding that incident Jalil Akhtar, S.- I. Proceeded to Civil Hospital, Rajana where he recorded the statement of Mst. Sardaran Bibi complainant at 10-00 p.m. On 1-7-1998. Formal F.I.R. No,248 was subsequently registered at Police Station Rajana, District Toba Tek Singh at 10-05 p.m. On 1-7-1998 for offences under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. The injured person namely Ghulam Mustafa also died in the hospital after a few days.
3. The investigation of this case was conducted by Jalil Akhtar, S.-I. (P.W.14) who got the deadbodies subjected to postmortem examination, effected recoveries from the spot, recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested the accused persons, recovered a gun .12 bore from the possession of Liaquat Ali appellant and upon completion of the investigation he submitted a challan.
4. At the commencement of the trial the learned trial Court framed a charge with three heads under sections 302/34, P.P.C., 302/34, P.P.C. And 324/34, P.P.C. Against the appellant and his co- accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
5. During the trial the prosecution produced as many as fourteen witnesses in support of its case against the appellant and his co-accused. Mst. Sardaran Bibi complainant (P.W.1) and Mst. Abida Bibi (P.W.2) furnished the ocular account of the incident in question and also stated about the immediate motive. Shafaat Ahmad, FC (P.W.4) deposed about the recovery of a gun from the appellant's possession during the investigation of this case. The medical evidence was provided by Dr. Ghulam Dastagir (P.W.11), Dr. Fateh Din Shad (P.W.12) and Dr. Raja Nasar Iqbal (P.W.13). Jalil Akhtar, S.-I. (P.W.14) stated about the various steps taken by him during the investigation of this case. The remaining evidence produced by the prosecution was more or less of formal nature.
6. In their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant and his co-accused other than Shafqat convict denied and controverted all the allegations of fact levelled against them by the prosecution and professed their innocence. Shafqat convict maintained that he was given a merciless beating by the accused party and in order to save himself he had fired only one shot from a carbine which shot had hit both Ghulam Mustafa and Zulfiqar Khan deceased. He further maintained that the appellant and the other accused persons were not present at the spot at the relevant time. The appellant and his co-accused had opted not to make statements on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And they also did not produce any witness in their defence.
7. At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant's co-accused namely Mst. Saidan Bibi and Muhammad Imran, convicted and sentenced Shafqat co-accused for offences under sections 324 and 337-F(iii), P.P.C. For causing injuries to Mst. Abida Bibi and convicted Liaquat Ali appellant for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. On two counts and sentenced him accordingly as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal and the connected Murder Reference before this Court.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, he is entitled to be acquitted by this Court. In the alternative has been argued by her that in the circumstances of this case the sentences of death passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant ought to be reduced to imprisonment for life on both the counts. As against that the learned counsel for the State has maintained that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the appellant's guilt to the hilt and, therefore, his convictions and sentences recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference by this Court.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case with their assistance we have straightaway observed that Mst. Sardaran Bibi complainant (P.W.1) and Mst. Abida Bibi (P.W.2) were quite natural witnesses as the house wherein they used to live was situated only 5 to 7 Karams away from the place of occurrence. Mst. Abida Bibi (P.W.2) had the stamp of injuries on her person so as to vouchsafe her presence at the scene of the crime at the relevant time.
' It may be true that Mst. Sardaran Bibi complainant (P.W.1) is a sister of Zulfiqar Khan deceased and Mst. Abida Bibi (P.W.2) is the widow of Zulfiqar Khan deceased but this relationship of these ladies with the deceased does not cloud the veracity of their statements made before the learned trial Court as these ladies had no earthly reason to falsely implicate the appellant in a case of this nature. These eye-witnesses had made consistent statements before the learned trial Court A regarding the main incident and they had not been seriously cross-examined in that regard by the defence. Liaquat Ali appellant had been duly nominated in the F.I.R. As the person responsible for causing fire-arm injuries to both the deceased namely Ghulam Mustafa and Zulfiqar Khan. The occurrence in this case had taken place in daylight and there was hardly any chance of a mistaken identity. The learned trial Court had felt convinced of the veracity of the statements of both the above mentioned eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution and the statements of the said eye-witnesses have also inspired our confidence to the extent of Liaquat Ali appellant.
10. Nit. Sardaran Bibi complainant (P.W.1) had provided graphic details of the happening taking place immediately prior to the main incident and due to proximity of her house with the place of occurrence it was quite natural for her to have witnessed the entire transaction taking place before and during the main occurrence. The happenings taking place immediately prior to the main occurrence had provided an immediate motive to the appellant for firing at the two deceased and killing them. The statement made by the said witness regarding the immediate motive had remained unshaken during her cross-examination.
11. Although a gun .12 bore had been recovered from the appellant's possession during the investigation of this case and two crime-empties recovered from the place of occurrence had matched with the said gun, as is evident from the report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, yet we have decided not to attach must importance to the said recoveries as admittedly the crime-empties and the recovered gun had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory together.
12. The medical evidence had provided full support to the ocular account furnished in this case as the date and time of occurrence, the weapon used and the locale of the injuries deposed in the ocular account had been confirmed by the medical evidence.
13. The stand taken by Shafqat convict in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was different from his first stand taken before Jalil Akhtar, S.-I. (P.W.14), the Investigating Officer. At the time of his arrest Shafqat convict had maintained before the Investigating Officer that both the deceased had been done to death by Liaquat Ali appellant but before the learned trial Court he had maintained that it was he (Shafqat convict) who had murdered both the deceased. We have found such improvement of the stand by Shafqat convict to be nothing but a desperate but unsuccessful attempt by a son to shift the blame from his father unto himself and then to get away with a lesser sentence on the ground of minority of his age.
14. For what has been observed above we have arrived at a confident conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against Liaquat Ali appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, his convictions recorded by the learned trial Court on both the counts under Sections 302(b), P.P.C. Are unexceptionable.
15. We have given our anxious consideration to the question of sentences to be passed against the appellant but have failed to find any plausible mitigating circumstances so as to reduce his sentences from death to imprisonment for life. It may be true that the occurrence in this case had taken place at the spur of the moment without any premeditation on the part of the accused party but at the same time it is equally true that Liaquat Ali appellant had overreacted and had taken undue advantage of the situation. He had fired at both the deceased one after the other and had chosen vital parts of their bodies to be his targets and had, thus, ensured their deaths. The injuries allegedly sustained by Shafqat convict had never been established through any independent material and, thus, Liaquat Ali appellant had ostensibly no good reason available with him to kill two middle aged persons over a trifling quarrel between two children. The normal wages of a crime of murder is death and in the above mentioned circumstances of this case the appellant deserved no less.
16. As a sequel to the discussion made above Criminal Appeal No,95-J of 2000 is dismissed and the convictions and sentences of Liaquat Ali appellant recorded by the learned trial Court are upheld and maintained. The learned trial Court had failed to pass any sentence against the appellant in case of default on his part regarding payment of compensation to the heirs of both the deceased.
It is hereby ordered that in case of his default in payment of compensation to the heirs of both the deceased the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months on each count.
17. Murder Reference No,111 of 2000 is answered in the affirmative and the sentences of death passed by the learned trial Court against Liaquat Ali appellant are confirmed.