' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been directed against the judgment, dated 14-10-2002 passed by Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in two criminal appeals and murder reference arising out of the judgment, dated 2-10-2001 passed by Special Court established under Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997, Gujranwala. The petitioners namely Qaiser son of Ali Bahader and Zafarullah son of Mutalli along with nine others were tried for the charges, under sections 6 and 7 of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1997) read with sections 302(b)/ 148/149 and 506, P.P.C. The learned trial Judge having found the petitioners guilty of the charges convicted and sentenced them as under:---
(a) Under section 7 of the Act 1997 death to all.
(b) Under section 302(b), P.P.C. Death on five counts to each for committing the murder of five deceased namely Amjad Hussain, Muhammad Riyaz, Pervaiz Illahi, Muhammad Ashraf and Liaquat Ali.
(c) Under section 148, P.P.C. Three years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,10,000 each and in default of the payment of fine to undergo R.I. For a period of four months each.
' The co-accused of the petitioners namely Ali Bahadur, Muhammad Asif alias Papu, Muhammad Ashraf and Allah Ditta were acquitted.
2. In appeal, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners was upheld by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide impugned judgment.
3. The occurrence in the present case had taken place at 7-15 a.m. On 12-6-2000 at Shaheen Chowk, Gujrat situated at a distance of 3-1/2 miles from Police Station, Civil Lines, Gujrat.
4. The facts briefly as contained in the statement made by Subedar Muhammad Asghar before Khalid Hussain, A.S.I. At 8-15 a.m. On the same day at the spot on the basis of which case was registered are that he along with Muhammad Afzal and Fayaz Hussain on reaching at Shaheen Chowk were waiting for Liaquat Ali, Amjad Hussain, Muhammad Riyaz, Pervaiz Illahi and Muhammad Ashraf (all deceased) to go together to attend the hearing of the murder case of Naveed Akram, his nephew, which was pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat and was fixed on that day for recording the prosecution evidence. The deceased while travelling in a Car being driven by Muhammad Riyaz when reached at Shaheen Chowk, the petitioners and their co-accused namely Tahir, Ashraf, Nasir, Bahadur, Billo and Nadir armed with lethal weapons suddenly emerged on the road and opened firing at the car as a result of which all the above named five deceased seated in the car were hit and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Motive for the occurrence was that the petitioners and the acquitted accused were facing trial of the murder of Naveed Akram, in which the complainant and the deceased were prosecution witnesses and accused party was putting pressure upon the complainant party for compromise but on refusal of complainant party, the accused planned to eliminate the witnesses in the murder case pending against them in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat. The prosecution case mainly rests upon the eye-witnesses account furnished by Muhammad Asghar, Muhammad Afzal and Fayaz Hussain, the medical evidence and motive.
5. The petitioners denied the charge and pleaded false implication due to the enmity. Muhammad Qaiser petitioner taking the plea of alibi stated that he being employed in the office of Land Acquisition Collector was present in his office at the time of occurrence. Muhammad Zafarullah petitioner pleaded that he be being belonged to a different caste and village was neither present at the spot nor had any concern with the affairs of the parties. The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court in appeal having scanned the evidence in detail held the petitioners guilty of the charges and convicted them accordingly. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the parties were inimical to each other and the motive of enmity being double-edged weapon would not be used as an independent source of corroboration to the ocular account of the witnesses. Learned counsel has contended that it was not understandable that why the witnesses while going to the Sessions Court on a bus would disboard from bus at Shaheen Chowk at a distance of more than three miles from the Sessions Court and that their presence at the spot at the relevant time being unnatural was highly doubtful, therefore, it would be unsafe to give much credence to their evidence. Learned counsel while taking us to the certain portion of the statement of the eye-witnesses tried to argue that even if the witnesses were present at Shaheen Chowk, it was not possible for them to witness the actual scene as at the time of firing a long vehicle was passing on the road and the assailants and the car in which deceased reached there were not visible to the witnesses. In nutshell, learned counsel argued that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot was not established beyond doubt and that they being real brothers of the deceased were inimical and highly interested, therefore, no implicit reliance could be placed on their evidence without independent corroboration. The learned counsel added that the assailants being not identifiable in the given situation, the evidence of eye-witnesses would become irrelevant to prove the charge.
6. We having scrutinized the evidence in the light of the contentions raised by the learned counsel found that same have no force. The fateful occurrence took place at about 7-15 a.m. On the road near Shaheen Chowk, Gujrat and the statement of the complainant was recorded by an A.S.-I. At the spot within one hour of the occurrence. It is not denied that the murder case of Naveed Akram was fixed for recording the evidence on that day and the petitioners were accused in the said case, whereas the five deceased and complainant were prosecution witnesses against them, therefore, the complainant and witnesses as per understanding with the deceased must have reached at 7- 15 a.m. As this is usual that the parties in such cases proceed towards the Court in groups and thus the presence of the witnesses at Shaheen Chowk in the morning before going to the Sessions Court was quite natural. The scrutiny of the evidence would not suggest any exaggeration in the manner in which the eye-witnesses have narrated the occurrence and consequently there would be no reason to disbelieve the direct evidence of most natural witnesses for minor discrepancies and contradictions. There is no cavil to the proposition that motive is a double-edged weapon but in the present case we find that the petitioners were facing trial in the murder case of Naveed Akram whereas the deceased were witnesses in the said case and notwithstanding pressure of the accused for compromise, the very fact that deceased were prosecution witnesses in the said case and parties were inimical to each other would be a sufficient circumstance to suggest that petitioners had strong motive to commit the crime, with the intention to destroy the evidence and therefore, the circumstances under which the occurrence took place would sufficiently establish that ocular account was truthful. This is settled principle of law that in case of interested and inimical witnesses the Court should look for the independent corroboration but this rule is not an inflexible rule of criminal administration of justice rather the rule of corroboration is a rule of abundant caution which is to A be necessarily followed to ensure the correctness of the allegation and if the direct evidence was confidence-inspiring there would be no need of corroboration. We may observe that mere relationship or enmity is not always enough to declare a witness partisan or interested or that he was not a truthful witness. The Court in the light of the attending circumstances if feels satisfied that a witness was truthful and straightforward, his evidence would be believed without looking for any other corroboration, therefore insistence for independent corroboration in each case would not be necessary. In the present case we having gone through the record have not been able to locate any infirmity in the statement of the eye-witnesses to doubt their veracity and exclude their evidence from consideration for want of corroboration. The motive of previous enmity between the parties may be on the either side but in the facts of the present case the accused had a direct motive to eliminate the eye-witnesses of the earlier murder case, which would provide a strong and sufficient corroboration to the eye-witnesses' account. The medical evidence would be another source of corroboration in respect of kind of weapon used in the occurrence, the nature of injuries and the time of death. We having scanned the evidence in detail find that eye-witnesses inter se corroborated each other on each material point and their evidence was of unimpeachable character to be disbelieved. The contention of the learned counsel that the occurrence did not take place in the manner as described by the prosecution and the eye-witnesses were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence is not supported from the record. The report of the occurrence was lodged within one hour which contained full detail of the occurrence excluding even a remote possibility of substitution of the real culprits or the presence of witnesses at the spot. Learned counsel has also not been able to show us any mitigating circumstance in favor of the petitioners for lesser penalty. The occurrence was an extreme act of terrorism and brutality in which five persons were killed on the road at the busy place, therefore, the offence would squarely fall within the ambit of terrorism as defined in section 6 of the Terrorism Act, 1997. The learned counsel has not been able to show us any mitigation in favor of the petitioners for lesser penalty and we are of the considered view that in the given facts the petitioners would not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence.
7. For the reasons given above the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners does not call for interference and the same is maintained. The petition is dismissed and leave is refused.