1. Kh. Muhammad Sharif, J.--This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.5.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby, after having tried the appellant, convicted him under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to death with a further direction to pay a compensation of Rs, 1,00,000/- as provided under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. in default whereof to further undergo six months SI. The appellant has assailed the above conviction and sentence through the titled appeal, complainant has. filed Criminal Revision No, 96/2000 for enhancement of amount of compensation while the learned trial Court has sent the titled Murder Reference for confirmation of the sentence. All these matters are being disposed of through this single judgment as they arise out of the same judgment.
2. 2.Brief facts of the case, as given by the complainant Mst. Khalida Perveen (PW-5) in the FIR are that on the night between 27th/28th April, 1998, she was sleeping in her house alongwith her deceased husband Abdul Qayyum when she heard noise and woke up, she saw the appellant near the cot of her husband who fired a shot at her husband with .32 bore revolver on his chest, the bulb in the courtyard was on, she reprimanded the accused for doing so, her hue and cry attracted the prosecution witnesses who were also sleeping in the house, the accused decamped from the spot, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot and the motive was that 2/3 days prior to the occurrence children of both the sides quarreled with each other whereupon both the parties exchanged abuses which annoyed the accused.
3. 3.After having completed legal formalities, challan was submitted against the accused before the learned Court of competent jurisdiction accused denied the charge and claimed trial, where, the prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, produced ten witnesses during the trial.
4. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that the occurrence in this case had taken place in the dead hours of the night and remained unwitnessed; that both the eye- witnesses i,e, Mst. Khalida Perveen (PW-5) and Muhammad Younis (PW-6) are widow and real brother of the deceased; that the third eye-witness of the case, namely, Mst. Zaib Fatima was given up; that the FIR was lodged after due consultations and deliberations as the occurrence had taken place at 12.30 a.m. while the FIR was recorded at 3.40 a.m. i,e, with a delay of about three hours; that no crime empty was recovered from the spot; that there is no matching report of the lead bullet with the .32 bore pistol recovered on the pointation of the appellant; that the motive was not proved; that it was not a case of capital punishment; that it is a case of single shot which is a mitigating circumstances benefit of which should be granted to the appellant.
5. 5.On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the appellant is named in the FIR and a specific role has been assigned to him; that it is a case of single accused; that no question for false implication or substitution arises; that the matter was reported to the police by Younis PW at the Police Station but due to inefficiency and negligence of the police, FIR was not recovered on his statement, so, the same cannot damage the prosecution case; that the appellant is attributed a fatal injury on the person of the deceased; that the ocular account is corroborated by the medical evidence and that there is no mitigating circumstances in this case in favour of the appellant.
6. The learned Assistant Advocate General Mr. Tanveer Iqbal Khan, while arguing his case on behalf of the State, contends that it is not a case of substitution or false implication; that the motive was a petty matter; that the murder was committed by the appellant and that it is not a case of death sentence.
7. 6.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also given anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. 7.The occurrence had taken place at 12.30 a.m., the matter was reported to the police at 1.15 a.m. by Younas 'PW the police reached at the spot at 3.00 a.m. while the FIR was recorded at 3.40 a.m. on the statement of Mst. Khalida and the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is six miles. So, it can be said that it is a promptly lodged FIR. It is a ease of single accused.
9. The allegation against the appellant is that while armed with a .32 bore pistol, he entered the house of the deceased and fired a shot which proved fatal. Although the occurrence had taken place during the night hours yet it has come on record that there was an electric bulb on at the spot and the eye-witnesses of the case had identified the appellant in the light of the said bulb. There is a mention of the electric bulb in the site plan as well. The parties were known to each other.
8. The prosecution to prove its case produced Mst. Khalida Perveen (PW-5). Although she is closely related to the deceased i,e, widow yet she has no enmity or strong motive to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. The appellant was known to the complainant party and the eye-witnesses prior to the occurrence. More so, it is rare phenomenon that a real widow/wife of the deceased would substitute the real culprit of the case. She has reasonably explained her presence at the place of occurrence because it happened within the premises of her house and she is the most natural witness of the same and we see no reason not to accept her statement. Notwithstanding the fact that she was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be shaken from her testimony.
10. 9.There is yet another eye-witness of the case, namely, Muhammad Younis (PW-6) who appeared before the learned trial Court in support of the prosecution case. He also remained consistent on all material particulars of the case and nothing could be shaken from his testimony despite his cross- examination to which he was subjected during the trial. He corroborated the statement of the above eye-witness on the main points. Although he is also real brother of the deceased yet he has no enmity with the appellant to falsely depose against him. He has also reasonable proved his presence at the spot to have witnessed the occurrence. This Court seems his testimony to be worthy of credence.
11. 10.The ocular account is corroborated by the medical evidence because appellant was attributed a .32 bore shot on the person of the deceased and according to the Post-mortem Examination conducted by PW-7 Dr. Muhammad Ryas a fire-arm injury on the front of left side of the chest is present on the person of the deceased. More so, although there is no specific report of the Fire-arm Expert in this regard but the lead bullet recovered from the body of the deceased was found to have been fired from a .32 bore pistol.
12. 11.An abortive attempt was made to argue that since the prosecution had failed to prove the motive part of the prosecution and the appellant was attributed a single shot, so, it was not a case of capital punishment. The said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable.
13. Because it is law of the land that where the eye-witness account was worthy of credience, unimpeachable, confidence inspiring and accusation was established beyond shadow of doubt, weakness of motive or its absence or were alleged but not proved could hardly make any difference in .awarding the death and would not constitute mitigating circumstances. This is in line with the law laid down by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in Waris Khan vs. The State (2001 SCM R 387). This view was further reiterated in yet another judgment of the Apex Court of the country reported in Saeed And 2 others vs. The State (2003 SCM R 747) wherein, at page 753 of the judgment, the August Court observed that "weakness and insufficiency of motive or absence of motive in murder cases cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance for awarding lesser punishment".
14. In this regard we are further fortified with yet another judgment of the August Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in Syed Muhammad Mukhtar Shah vs. Muhammad Azam and 2 others (2005 SCMR 4270, delivered in December, 2004; wherein the decision of the High Court in reducing the sentence of death into imprisonment for life was set-aside and the same was enhanced to death under Section 302(b) PPC. It is imperative to quote page 429 of the judgment, which portion of the judgment of the Apex Court reads as under:-- "6. It was through a judgment delivered in the case of Saeed Akhtar and others vs. The State reported as 2002 SCM R 383 that this Court had declared that insufficiency of motive or motive being shrouded in mystery could not be considered as circumstances justifying non-awarding of the normal penalty of death to a murderer or to reduce the sentence of death to a lesser punishment. This view has been consistently followed by this Court ever since. In the case of Arshad Ali @ Acchhu vs. The State reported as 2002 SCM R 1806, it was held that even where the occurrence resulting in a murder had taken place at the spur of the moment and even where only one shot had been fired and same had not been repeated, the only penalty deserved by the killer was the normal punishment of death prescribed for the said offence. This Court reiterated in Hameed Khan's case reported as 2002 SCM R 1155 that inadequacy of weakness of the alleged motive or where motive had not been proved, an assailant, if found guilty of causing the murder of another, did not deserve any leniency and the only punishment awardable in such like circumstances would be sentence 'of death". (emphasis supplied)
12. After having adjudged the case from every angle, having sifted grain from the chaff, after' having applied independent judicial mind and respectfully following the above quoted dictums of the August Supreme Court of Pakistan this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain conviction against the appellant. The evidence produced by the prosecution is trustworthy and reliable. It is upto the standards fixed by the Superior Courts of the country and the law of the land. This Court has scrutinized the, case from all important angles and being conscious of the fact that while delivering a judgment in the criminal dispensation of justice, the approach of the Court should always be dynamic one and while doing so, the technicalities and minor contradiction should be overlooked.
15. Resultantly, this appeal has no merit which is hereby dismissed. Murder Reference is answered in Affirmative and death sentence awarded to the appellant is Confirmed. For afore-referred reasons, Criminal Revision No, 96/2000 is dismissed.