Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.--This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos, 654 of 2001 and 87 of 2001 respectively filed by Muhammad Riaz and Ali Muhammad alias Alia (since dead), who were convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, vide judgment dated 1.2.2001, as follows:--
(I) Muhammad Riaz for offence under Section 302(b) PPC to death plus payment of Rs, 50,000./- as compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default in payment whereof to undergo S.I. for four months;
(II) Ali Muhammad for offence under Section 302(c)/109 PPC to undergo R.I. for fourteen years plus payment of Rs, 10,000/- as fine, which, in the event of realisation, was to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default in payment whereof to undergo S.I. for two months. He was also given the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.
Murder Reference No, 136 of 2001 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of Muhammad Riaz shall also be replied through this single judgment.
2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by Shafi Muhammad-complainant/PW, are that he and his brother Ali Muhammad had joint agricultural land in Chak No, 303/EB. The said land was in possession and use of Ali Muhammad. It was partitioned five months ago at the insistence of Mst.
Husna Bibi, his wife. Ali Muhammad had sown cotton crop in the said joint land. On 25.11.1992, the complainant's wife Mst. Husna and his daughter Nusrat Bibi aged about ten years went to Chak No, 303/EB to pick the cotton and stayed there in the house of Ihsan Bibi wife of Khushi Muhammad. On the fateful day at evening time, Riaz son of Khushi Muhammad, the nephew of Mst. Husna came to her alongwith his bicycle, loaded 25 Kilos of cotton, which both his wife and daughter had picked from their land, started proceeding towards the aforesaid Chak, followed by Mst. Nusrat and Husna.
At Maghrabvela, when they reached near the cotton crop of Nasar Din, a person, whose features have been detailed in the FIR, who was armed with .12-bore pistol and had ambushed himself in the cotton crop, came across them and shot a fire at Mst. Husna Bibi at her front and then repeated the same from her back, in view whereof she fell down. The aforesaid accused pointed the pistol at Muhammad Riaz who fled away, leaving the bicycle and the cotton on the spot. The complainant also reached the chak at the evening time to take back his wife and daughter. Riaz narrated the whole incident to him and Khushi Muhammad. The complainant alongwith Khushi Muhammad and Muhammad Riaz want to the spot where Mst. Husna had already died due to the injuries sustained by her and his daughter Mst. Nusrat was weeping there. According to the complainant, his brother Ali Muhammad, who had grudge against his wife Mst. Husna Bibi on account of partition of land, had abetted the commission of her murder. The occurrence was witnessed by Riaz and Mst. Nusrat, who could identify the accused.
3. After registration of formal FIR, Ch. Muhammad Rasheed, Inspector/SHO, proceeded to the spot, prepared injury statement (Ex. PJ) and inquest report (Ex. PK) and sent the dead body to the Mortuary for post mortem examination. On 27-11-1992, on spot inspection, he collected blood stained earth through memo Ex. PC, two empty cartridges P-9/1-2 through memo Ex. PD. After post mortem examination, he took into possession the last worn clothes of the deceased consisting of shirt P-1, Shalwar P-2, Dopatta P-3, Paranda P-4, Vest P-5 and brazier P-6, all blood stained expect Dopatta P-3, through memo Ex. PE. He prepared sketch plan Ex. P-I without scale. Ali Muhammad accused was arrested on 29.12.1992, while Riaz accused was arrested on 31.12.1992. From personal search of Riaz,' Pistol .12-bore P-7 alongwith five live cartridges was recovered, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PF. Site-plan Ex. PF/1 was prepared in this respect. On application of 10, on 21.1.1993, Khushi Muhammad Nazar, AC/MIC, conducted identification parade, wherein Riaz- accused was picked as accused by the PWs Riaz and Nusrat Bibi. His report and certificate are Ex.
PH and PH/1. Ali Muhammad accused confessed before Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Din, PWs, that he and Riaz-accused had committed the murder of Mst. Husna Bibi and that it was he who had given the pistol to Riaz-accused. After completion of investigation, the accused was sent to face the trial.
4. At the trial, the prosecution, examined fourteen witnesses in all. After tendering the reports of Chemical Examiner Ex. PM, Serologist Ex. PN and that of Forensic Science Laboratory in evidence, the prosecution closed its side. The accused in their statements pleaded their innocence and false involvement. They also produced three DWs in their defence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, submits that the appellant was not named in the FIR; that the occurrence took place in the darkness of night, so the identification was difficult; that the complainant is not an eye-witness in this case. The other witness Riaz, who is maternal nephew of the deceased, was given up as having been won over by the accused; that the identification parade is bogus one because twice the Magistrate fixed the date but did not hold the identification parade; that there is no other evidence except the solitary statement of Mst.
Nusrat Bibi and on her sole statement, death sentence is not called for. As far as recoveries are concerned, the same have been planted on the appellant; that no case is made out and the appellant is entitled to the acquittal.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the statement of Mst. Nusrat Bibi is sufficient to maintain the conviction, as she was present in the company of her mother, when her murder was committed. She has fully supported the prosecution case, which is further strengthened by the medical evidence and the report of the Arms Expert.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
8. In the instant case, the complainant is Shafi Muhammad, who is husband of Mst. Husna Bibi, the deceased. He had lodged the FIR but the was not eye-witness. There were only two eye witnesses, namely Mst. Nusrat Bibi, daughter of the deceased, and Riaz, maternal nephew of Mst. Husna Bibi.
The FIR was lodged within two hours of the occurrence. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence was 12 miles. Ali Muhammad-accused is the real brother of Shafi Muhammad and has been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 302(c)/109 PPC to undergo fourteen years' R.I. but according to learned counsel he had met his death after his release on bail. So his appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No, 87 of 2001 has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. Riaz appellant was arrested on 31.12.1992. The identification parade was held on 21.1.1993 by Khushi Muhammad Nazar, Magistrate PW-8. Twice he ordered for the identification parade but due to the visit of the Chief Minister in the District, he could not hold it. We have gone through the identification parade report, which is very detailed one. He had adopted all the precautions for holding the identification parade. He was examined at the trial but not a single question was put to him, although opportunity was provided. Both Riaz and Mst. Nusrat identified the appellant in jail. Riaz did not appear, as he was won over by the accused and was given up as such on the application of the complainant. The appellant also led to the recovery of pistol on 31.12.1992 when he was arrested. The report of the Fire Arms Expert with regard to the crime empties is positive in nature because the two crime empties recovered from the spot were already sent to the Fire Arms Expert on 10.12.1992. Though Mst. Nusrat Bibi is the sole witness yet she has fully supported the prosecution case. She not only identified the appellant in the course of identification parade but also before the trial Court and made him responsible for the death of her mother. The Court has to see the quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence. It has been held time and again by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court that if the solitary statement is confidence inspiring and has come from an unimpeachable source and has intrinsic value, capital punishment can be maintained on the basis of such statement. Mst. Nusrat had no enmity against the appellant, so there is no question of his false implication in the case. The ocular evidence is fully supported by the medical evidence and also gets support from the positive report of Fire Arms Expert. The appellant not only fired a shot but repeated the same to kill an innocent woman. In these circumstances, the appellant does not deserve any leniency.
9. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. The death sentence is confirmed. The Murder Reference stands answered in the affirmative.