' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,173-J of 2001 filed by Gulzar Ahmad and Shafqat Hayat, who were convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, in case F.I.R. No,157, registered at Police Station Kuthiala Sheikhan, on 9-3-2000, for offences under section 302/324/34, P.P.C., vide his judgment dated 21-4- 2001 as under:- ' Death to both the appellants under section 302(b), P.P.C. For committing murders of Arshad Mehmood, Mst. Naziran Bibi, Mst. Kausar Naseem, Mst. Nuzhat Pervin and Mst. Musarrat Shaheen.
' Murder Reference No,315 of 2001 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of appellants shall also be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in F.I.R. Exh.PC/1 registered on the written statement Exh.PC of Muhammad Tariq-complainant are that on 9-3-2000 at about 10-00 a.m. Gulzar Ahmad and Shafqat Hayat (armed with .30 bore pistols) fired at their brother Arshad Mehmood, mother Mst.
Naziran Bibi, sisters Mst. Kausar Naseem, Mst. Nuzhat Pervin and Mst. Musarrat Shaheen, while they were present in their house. Arshad Mehmood, Mst. Naziran Bibi and Mst. Kausar Naseem died at the spot, while Mst. Nuzhat Pervin and Mst. Musarrat Shaheen, who were seriously injured and were taken to hospital, died later on.
' The motive behind the occurrence was the differences amongst the family members over marriage of daughter of Khizar Hayat.
3. After registration of formal F.I.R., the investigation of the case was taken over by Fateh Khan, Inspector/S.H.O./P.W.12. He proceeded to the place of occurrence, took over the dead bodies, prepared injury statements Exh.PR, Exh.PS and Exh.PT and inquest reports Exh.PR/1, Exh.PS/1 and Exh.PT/1, of dead bodies of Arshad Mehmood, Mst. Naziran and Mst. Kausar Naseem, respectively.
He took into possession blood-stained earth from the places, where the dead bodies of the deceased were lying, vide memo. Exh.PG.
' He also took into possession 24 empty cartridges of .30 bore Exh.P-17/1-24 vide memo. Ehx.PH. On the same day he went to the D.H.Q., .Hospital, Mandi Bahauddin and prepared injury statement Exh.PV and inquest report Exh.PV/1 of Mst. Musarrat Shaheen. On 14-3-2000 he arrested Gulzar Ahmad-appellant. On personal search of Gulzar Ahmad .30 bore pistol P-18 was recovered from his possession, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PJ. On the same date. Shafqat Hayat- appellant appeared before the S.H.O./Investigation Officer along with his licensed .30 bore pistol P- 16, which was taken into possession vide memo. ExhlPE. After completion of investigation, the accused were sent up to face trial.
4. At the trial, the prosecution in order to prove its . Case produced 13 witnesses in all. The prosecution after tendering in evidence the reports of Chemical Examiner Exh.PX, Serologist Exh.PY and that of Fire-arm Expert Exh.PZ closed its case. Gulzar Ahmad- appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Pleaded his innocence and false implication. While Shafqat Hayat- appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In answer to question No,5 deposed that "I have fired at my sisters, brother and mother because they were leading an immoral life, which pinch me." Both the accused did not appear as witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. After conclusion of trial . The appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated above.
5. After having read the entire prosecution evidence, statement of the appellants recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And other relevant material available on record, the learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal submits that P.Ws. Were not present at the spot as they were the residents of far off places; that the P.Ws. Have not plausibly explained their presence at the place of occurrence; that Muhammad Tariq- complainant was not present at the scene of occurrence and was called after the occurrence; that the motive is shrouded in mystery; that the prosecution has failed to prove motive as set down in the F.I.R.; and that mitigating circumstances exist in favour of the appellants.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits .That the appellants have brutally * murdered their mother, brother and sisters; that the ocular account is fully supported by the medical evidence and the circumstances of the case; that the empties recovered from the spot tallied with .30 bore pistol recovered from Gulzar Ahmad-appellant and that the appellants did not deserve any leniency.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record minutely. Muhammad Tariq and Mst. Shahida Pervin P.Ws. 5 and 6 have appeared as eye- witnesses. Muhammad Tariq was married with Mst. Qamar Sultana, sister of the appellants, while Mst.L Shahida Pervin is real sister of the appellants. Both these witnesses had no previous ill-will or grudge against the appellants whatsoever so as to depose falsely against them. Undeniably the occurrence has taken place inside the house; hence, the P.Ws. Were the natural witnesses. The only objection brought forwarded during cross-examination against these P.Ws. Was that they were the residents of different villages situated quite a distance from the place of occurrence. However, both these witnesses have plausibly explained their presence in the house on the date of occurrence. It is stated in the F.I.R. And also in the statements of the P.Ws. That they had gone to the place of occurrence on the occasion of marriage ceremony of Muhammad Arshad-deceased, Shafqat Hayat-appellant, Mst. Kausar Nasim-deceased and Mst. Musarrat Shaheen-deceased. The marriages were to take place on 21st, 22nd and 23rd of March, so the presence of Muhammad Tariq in the house of his in-laws two weeks earlier is not an unnatural circumstance. Similarly the presence of Mst. Shahida Pervin, who is daughter and sister of the deceased and also sister of the appellants is quite natural. It is common knowledge that on such occasions the close relatives assemble much earlier so as to participate in the various ceremonies prior to Nikah ceremony.
During cross-examination P.W.5 stated that Mst. Shahida Pervin had three children, who had accompanied her to attend the marriage. This fact was endorsed by Mst. Shahida Pervin during cross- examination. Both the P.Ws. Have given a very consistent account about the occurrence and they corroborated each other on all the material points. It is also noteworthy that the occurrence took place at 10-00 a,m. While the matter was reported to the police at 11-00 a.m. At Gohar Adda, which was at a distance of 6 kms. From the spot. This rules out the theory that Muhammad Tariq was called from his village after occurrence to make him complainant of the case, as it would not be possible for Muhammad Tariq, who was resident of a place which was at a distance of 40 kms.
From the spot, to report the matter to the police within an hour. Above all a sister would not involve her real brothers in a false case of murder of her sisters, brother and mother. The ocular account is fully supported by the medical evidence and corroborated circumstances of the case, lodging of F.I.R. Promptly.
8. Shafqat Hayat-appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Confessed that he caused murder of his mother, brother and sisters. However, according to him, he fired at his sisters, brother and mother because they were leading an immoral life, which pinched him. No specific incident or any specific allegation has been levelled against them nor it has been explained as to what triggered Shafqat Hayat to take life of his near and dears on the unfortunate day. Gulzar Ahmad however, took plea that he was roped in a false case by Muhammad Tariq, who had asked the hand of his daughter for his son but he refused. He could not explain as to why his real sister Mst. Shahida Pervin spoke against him. Not only this, 24 empties recovered from the spot tallied with .30 bore pistol, which was recovered from the right folder of trousers wearing by Gulzar Ahmad.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress on the point of motive. According to him, the prosecution miserably failed to prove motive as set down in the F.I.R. However, in this case, the act of killing of five persons by the appellants is proved by the ocular account fully supported by the medical evidence and corroborated by the circumstances of the case. The act of the appellants is barbaric, brutal and gruesome. It was observed by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Sye.d Hamid Mukhtar Shah v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others (2005 SCM R 427) 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". It was further observed that "inadequacy or 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 the sentence of death." The appellants are heartless killers who have taken life of their real mother, brother and sisters. The prosecution has successfully proved its case against them beyond doubt. No mitigating circumstance exists in their favour.
10. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. Murder Reference is answered in the affirmative. Death sentence is confirmed.