KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1589 of 2003 (Muhammad Aslam alias Tady v. The State), Criminal Appeal No,1569 of 2003 (Boota Masih v. The State), Criminal Appeal No,488-J of 2003 (Muhammad Ramzan and others v. The State) and Criminal Revision No,1012 of 2003 (Dr. Umar Bashir v. Muhammad Aslam etc.) as they arise out of the same judgment dated 4-9-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby, having tried the appellants (in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,286 dated 30-6-2000 under sections 302/392/460, P.P.C., Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore), they were convicted and sentenced as under:--
(i) UNDER SECTION 302(B). P.P.C.: to imprisonment for life each as Tazir with a compensation of Rs,50,000 each to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased;
(ii) UNDER SECTION 460. P.P.C.: to imprisonment for life each appellant;
(iii) UNDER SECTION 382-B. Cr.P.C.: ten years' R.I. Each and fine of Rs,10,000 each in default whereof to further undergo S.I. For two months each.
(iv) UNDER SECTION 382-B. Cr.P.C.: was extended to all the convicts/appellants and the sentences were directed to run CONCURRENTLY.
2. The prosecution, story, as unfolded through F.I.R. (Exh.PA/1) registered on the statement of the complainant, briefly stated is that on the intervening night of 29/30-6-2000, his father, namely, Dr. Bashir went to his room after making the round as per routine of the patients at about 10-30 p.m.
As the said doctor has been running a medical centre as Bashir Medical Centre, at Shah Jehan Road, for the last so many years; that on the next day i.e, 3-6-2000, the complainant and his cousin Shabbir Ahmad Malik and Tahir Mehmood Malik P.Ws. Went into the room of the complainant's father and door of the room was a bit open and found the said doctor dead on the ground facing the floor with tied hands behind and muffled mouth with a white cloth; that the deceased had been killed by the unknown person; that the complainant also mentioned that the deceased had no enmity with anyone; that the investigation was started and on the same day the complainant Dr. Umar Bashir made a supplementary statement that the above said accused killed his father and took away the cash and other articles.
3. After having completed usual formalities and investigation of the case, the police submitted challan against the accused before the learned Court of competent jurisdiction, where, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses.
4. The accused, when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution case, attributed their involvement in the present case to false implication and claimed trial.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant Muhammad Aslam alias Tady, submits that it is an unseen occurrence; that nobody was named in it; that the appellant and his co-convicts have been falsely implicated in this case due to suspicion; that suspicions are suspicions and nobody can be convicted in such-like cases; that the prosecution evidence has not come from an unimpeachable source and that the eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution are interested and inimical because no independent witness has come forward.
' While advancing his arguments, learned counsel contends that so far as recoveries are concerned, that is merely a padding by the police in connivance with the complainant party and that the said prosecution witnesses even failed to give a correct direction of the house and the way leading towards the house of Muhammad Aslam appellant.
' While further advancing his submissions, learned counsel adds that so far as extra-judicial confession of the appellant is concerned, the same is not believable because P.W.6 himself admits that he had not seen the accused earlier. Moreso that he neither informed the police nor the complainant in this regard coupled with the fact that, being a contractor of Cycle Stand in the Bashir Medical Centre, he was interested one. Next contention of the learned counsel is that no identification Parade was held in this case; that neither any witness of Wajtakkar or last seen was produced during the trial which weakens the case of the prosecution and that the appellant is entitled to acquittal in the afore-referred circumstances.
' Learned counsel for the appellant Boota Masih contends that the recovery witnesses did not know the direction of the house of this appellant about which they were 'confronted; that there is a clear- cut violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Because no body from the locality, from where the alleged recovery was made, was associated with the said proceedings; that the learned trial Court, as has been mentioned at page 26 of the impugned judgment, has not believed the extra-judicial confession; that the recoveries have been planted on the appellants in order to strangthen the prosecution case and that since the conviction of the appellants is based on the supplementary statement, therefore, the same is not maintainable and is liable to be set aside resulting into the acquittal.
' Learned counsel for the appellant Muhammad Ramzan contends that the judgment of conviction is based on surmises and conjectures; that there is no specification of currency in the F.I.R.; that the said appellant was not supposed to have kept the articles with him, allegedly recovered on his pointation; that he was not hoped of any benefit from making extrajudicial confession before P.W.6 Amjad Ali and that it is a case of no evidence.
6. On the other hand, while defending the impugned judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the complainant, submits that it is a brutal murder; that all the witnesses have come with true prosecution story; that since the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond an iota of doubt, therefore, in the afore-referred circumstances the appeal filed by the appellants against the said judgment is liable to be dismissed and their convictions and sentences are liable to be maintained by this Honourable Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the impugned judgment and the record with their able assistance and have also given exhaustive consideration to the arguments of the respective parties.
8. It is correct that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody was named in the F.I.R. The evidence produced by the prosecution against the appellants consists of extra-judicial confession made by the appellants one after another before Amjad Ali who appeared before the learned trial Court to corroborate the same. The prosecution case is further corroborated by the evidence of recoveries on the pointation of the appellants i.e, the currency notes and different articles belonged to the deceased looted during the commission of the offence.
9. To prove the prosecution case, apart from other prosecution witnesses, it produced Amjad Ali as P.W.6. He was Contractor of Cycle Stand of Bashir Medical Centre which was being run by the deceased Dr. Bashir. Appellant Ramzan used to work in Chaudhry Hotel, which was adjacent to the said Medical Centre. He was nephew of one Baba Dina, who was employee of Dr. Bashir. Ramzan appellant used to sleep on the roof of Bashir Medical Centre. Muhammad Aslam alias Tady and Muhammad Ramzan appellants used to come to Bashir Medical Centre for chatting with Boota Masih appellant and same was the position of Tanvir. Though it is a case of circumstantial evidence yet the Court has to see whether the witnesses are independent, having no animus against the appellants. No reason exists on record to falsely implicate the appellants. All the appellants/accused made extra-judicial confession, turn by turn, which is not joint before Amjad Ali P.W.6. The said witness is neither related to the complainant or the deceased. He was merely a contractor on the Bashir Medical Centre. Nothing has come on record to suggest even an iota evidence or motive to the false implication of the appellants in this case. He has fully implicated all the appellants/accused with the commission of the offence which is further corroborated from the factum of recoveries on the pointation of the accused/appellants. Nothing could be shaken during the lengthy cross-examination to which he was subjected during the trial. It is also established on record that all the appellants were on friendly terms and it is but natural that they joined hands with each other to commit such a heinous offence.
10. Following recoveries, in the presence of uninterested witnesses, were made from the accused/appellants during the course of investigation:--
(i) Muhammad Aslam Appellant: Rs,10,000 and a wrist watch (P.12) vide Exh.PJ. He also pointed out the place of occurrence + Currency Notes P.19/1-16, P.19/712 and P.19/13-124 vide memo. Exh.PB + Wrist Watch Seiko vide memo. Exh.PR.
(ii) Tanvir Convict: Revolver P.6 with three live bullets P.7/1-3 (Exh.PC), Hand bag and Passport of the deceased i.e, P.13 and P.14 vide memo. Exh.PL;
(iii) Muhammad Ramzan Appellant: Currency notes Exh.P.18/1-10, P.18/11-25, P.18/27-41 and P.18/42- 51) vide Exh.PQ and a purse P.10 containing a photograph P..11 embossed name of the deceased on it. Rs,20,000 and purse of deceased P.10 vide Exh. PH.
(iv) Boota Masih Appellant: Key Ring P.8, Photostat copy of Identity Card of deceased P.9 and Rs,10,000 vide memo. Exh.PG.
11. It would not be out of place to mention here that if the complainant party had any motive, or ulterior motive to falsely involve the appellants in the case in question then they must have named them in the F.I.R. Which was not done which further shows that prosecution has come forward with a natural and real story corroborated by evidence of extra-judicial confession and evidence of recovery. In such like cases either the accused are brought on record through the supplementary statement or on disclosure of somebody about the commission of their offence, therefore, non- naming in the F.I.R. Is not fatal to the prosecution case. None of the eye-witnesses of the recovery were inimical towards the appellants. This Court, to the entire satisfaction of its consciousness, seems no reason to discard their testimony. Even in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., they did not take up such. a plea and only stated that somebody else had committed the murder of deceased doctor.
12. It is settled law that if the case is based on circumstantial evidence, Courts should look for independent evidence coming from an unimpeachable source. This is a case in which the prosecution evidence is of trustworthy, confidence inspiring, no chance of false implication did exist on record and even despite lengthy cross-examination, to which the prosecution witnesses were subjected, nothing could be shaken. The evidence available on record is corroborative of each other and this Court finds no reason to discard the said evidence which has fully connected the appellants with the commission of the offence. It is no doubt a heinous offence in which a person, who was linked with the noble profession of medical, was killed and was deprived of right of life.
13. After having adjudged the case from every angle, having sifted grain from the chaff and after having applied independent judicial mind, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond a shadow of doubt to sustain conviction against them. Nutshell of the above discussion is that Criminal Appeal No,1589 of 2003 (Muhammad Aslam alias Tady v. The State), Criminal Appeal No,1569 of 2003 (Booty Masih v. The State) and Criminal Appeal No,488-J of 2003 (Muhammad Ramzan etc. v. The State) fail which are hereby dismissed and the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellants are maintained in toto. So far as Criminal Revision No,1012 of 2003 (Dr. Umar Bashir v. Muhammad Aslam etc.) is concerned, I find no merit in it which is hereby dismissed.