' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Javed Akhtar appellant was convicted on two counts of an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. Vide judgment dated 11-6-2001 handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha and was sentenced to death on each count and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000 to the heirs of the deceased by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted for an offence under section 336, P.P.C. For causing an injury to Mst. Razia Bibi and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three years and to pay Arsh to the injured victim. He was further convicted for an offence under section 324, P.P.C. For launching murderous assault upon Mst. Razia Bibi, Mst Safia Bibi and Mst. Robina Bibi and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three years.
All the sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellant were ordered to run concurrently and the benefit under section.
382.-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to him. Throngh the same judgment the learned trial Court had acquitted the appellant's co-accused namely Muhammad Akram, Zahid and Taj Muhammad. The appellant had challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through the present appeal which has been heard by us along with Murder Reference No.422 of 2001 seeking confirmation of the sentences of death passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant. We propose to decide both these matters together through the present consolidated judgment.
2. According to the prosecution's case unfolded in the F.I.R. Haq Nawaz complainant was a driver of a truck and was a resident of Raiz-ul Khatib Colony, Shahpur situated within the area of Police Station Shahpur Sadar, District Sargodha. At about 12-45 p.m. On 11-1-2000 the complainant along with his father namely Muhammad Ramzan his paternal uncle namely Fateh Muhammad, his wife namely . Mst. Razia Bibi, his daughters namely Mst. Safia Bibi and Mst. Robina Bibi, Muhammad Rafique and Mst. Zarina was sitting in the compound of the complainant's house when suddenly Javed Akhtar appellant armed with a pistol .30 bore came there and raised a Lalkara that he would teach a lesson to the complainant party for committing a theft of the appellant's property. The appellant then fired four shots at the complainant's father namely Muhammad Ramzan hitting him on his chest, left chest, left thigh, left leg and left side of neck. Upon receipt of those injuries Muhammad Ramzan fell down. The appellant then fired a shot hitting the complainant's paternal uncle namely Fateh Muhammad on the right side of his chest. Thereafter the appellant fired another shot at the complainant's wife namely Mst. Razia Bib hitting her on the right side of her chest. The appellant then fired at the complainant's daughter namely Mst. Robina Bibi hitting her on the front side of her left arm. After injuring all the above mentioned persons the appellant decamped from the spot while brandishing his pistol. Apart from the complainant the said incident had been witnessed by Muhammad Rafique and Mst. Zarina Bibi. All the injured victims were immediately removed to Civil Hospital, Shahpur on a private vehicle for medical treatment but upon reaching the hospital the complainant's father namely Muhammad Ramzan and the complainant's paternal uncle namely Fateh Muhammad succumbed to their injuries and died. The three injured ladies namely Mst. Razia Bibi, Mst. Safia Bibi and Mst. Robina Bibi were admitted to the said hospital for treatment. According to the F.I.R. The appellant had caused injuries to the deceased and the injured victims on the instigation of his co-accused namely Taj Muhammad, Muhammad Akram and Zahid. The motive set up in the F.I.R. Was that some time prior to the present occurrence a theft had been committed at the house of the appellant and his co-accused and the complainant party was suspected of committing that theft. The appellant and his co- accused had felt insulted on that score and on the basis of that grievance the appellant had committed the above mentioned murders and had caused injuries to the injured victims at the instance of his co-accused. Leaving the dead bodies and the injured victims in Civil Hospital, Shahpur in the care of Mukhtar Ahmad and. Muhammad Shafi the complainant went to the Police Station Shahpur Sadar, District Sargodha and lodged F.I.R. No.6 thereat in respect of the above mentioned incident at 3-20 p.m. On 11-1-2000 for offences under sections 302/324/109, P.P.C.
3. The investigation of this case was conducted by Ghulam Farid, S.-I. (P.W.12) and during the investigation injury statements and inquest reports were prepared, the dead bodies were got subject to post-mortem examination, the injured victims were got medically examined, the place of occurrence was inspected, bloodstained earth was secured six crime-empties were recovered, a rough site-plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. Subsequently the last-worn clothes of the deceased were secured, a formal site-plan of the place of occurrence was got prepared, the appellant and his co-accused were arrested and a pistol .30 bore was recovered from the appellant's possession. Upon completion of the investigation a challan was prepared and submitted in connection with this case.
4. At the commencement of the trial the learned trial Court framed a charge with three heads under sections 302/324/109, P.P.C. Against the appellant and his co-accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
5. During the trial the prosecution produced twelve witnesses in support of its case against the appellant and his co-accused. Haq Nawaz complainant (P.W.8) and Mst. Razia Bibi (P.W.9) furnished the ocular account of the incident in question and also deposed about the motive. Imtiaz Hussain, FC (P.W.5) stated about recovery of a pistol .30 bore from the appellant's possession during the investigation of this case. The medical evidence wag provided by Dr. Abdul Hameed (P.W.10) and Dr. Muhammad Saeed Kummah (P.W.11). Ghulam Farid, S.-I. (P.W.12) stated about the various steps taken by him during the investigation of this case. The remaining evidence produced by the prosecution was more or less formal in nature.
6. In their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant and his co-accused denied and controverted all the allegations of fact levelled against them by the prosecution and professed their innocence. 'They, however, opted not to make statements on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And did not produce any witness in their defence.
7. Upon conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant's co-accused namely Muhammad Akram, Zahid and Taj Muhammad but after finding the prosecution's case against Javed Akhtar appellant to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt it convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal and the connected Murder Reference before this Court.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted by this Court. As against that the learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have maintained in unison that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the appellant's guilt to the hilt and, thus, his convictions and, sentences recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference by this Court.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case with their assistance we have straightaway Observed that the occurrence in this case had taken place in broad daylight and an F.I.R. In respect of the same had been lodged with reasonable promptitude wherein Javed-Akhtar appellant had specifically been nominated as the principal perpetrator who had murdered Muhammad Ramzan and Fateh Muhammad deceased and had launched a murderous assault upon and had injured Mst. Razia Bibi, Mst. Safia Bibi and Mst. Robina Bibi by firing at them successively and effectively. The ocular account of the incident in issue was provided before the learned trial Court by Haq Nawaz complainant (P.W.8) and Mst. Razia Bibi (P.W.9). Both the said eye-witnesses were very closely related to the deceased and the injured victims and they were also natural to the occurrence. Haq Nawaz complainant (P.W.8) was a son of Muhammad Ramzan deceased and a nephew . Of Fateh Muhammad deceased besides being the husband of Mst. Razia bibi (P.W.9) and the father of Mst. Safia Bibi and Mst. Robina Bibi. Mst. Razia Bibi (P.W.9) is the wife fo Haq Nawaz complainant (P.W.8). The occurrence in this case had taken place in the compound of the house of these eye-witnesses and, thus, they were quite natural witnesses of that incident. Mst. Razia Bibi (P.W.9) had a stamp of injuries on her person so as to vouchsafe her presence at the spot at the relevant time. Both the said eye-witnesses had made consistent statements before the learned trial Court regarding the main occurrence and regarding the appellant's involvement in the same. The statements made by these eye-witnesses in respect of the main incident had not only inspired confidence of the learned trial Court but the same have also impressed us with their straightforwardness and forthrightness.
10. During the investigation of this B ,ease six crime-empties had been secured from the place of occurrence and a pistol .30 bore had been recovered from the appellant's possession. The report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit-PBB) shows that all the B six crime empties had matched with the pistol recovered from the appellant's possession and, thus, the ocular account had received sufficient corroboration from the said recoveries.
11. The medical evidence brought on the record had provided ample support to the ocular account inasmuch as the date and time of occurrence, the weapon used and the locale of the injuries stated by the eyewitnesses had all been confirmed by the medical evidence.
12. Although no independent evidence had been adduced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court regarding the motive set up by it yet the deficiency in the prosecution's case in this regard had been D found by us to be insufficient to shake or weaken the prosecution's case against the appellant which stood amply proved through consisted and natural ocular account corroborated by the recoveries and supported by the medical evidence.
13. Through his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant had maintained that it was Muhammad Rafique, a given up prosecution witness, who had committed the relevant murders and murderous assaults, etc. But the appellant's claim in that regard had failed to travel beyond a mere verbal assertion as no independent evidence whatsoever had been produced by the appellant in that respect before the learned trial Court. The said version of the appellant had, thus been rightly discarded by the learned trial Court.
14. The discussion made above leads us to an irresistible and unavoidable conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the appellant's guilt to the hilt. The appellant had entered the house of the complainant party and had murdered not only his own grandfather and his brother but had also caused fire-arm injuries to three innocent ladies in the backdrop of a dispute which was apparently F not very serious. This shows that the appellant is a desperate person who deserves no sympathy in the matter of sentence. The normal wages of a crime of murder is death and in the circumstances of this case the appellant deserves no less. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the convictions and sentences of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court are upheld and maintained. It is, however, clarified that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 to the heirs of each deceased and in default of payment thereof he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months on each count under section 302(b), P.P.C. It is also clarified that the appellant's conviction and sentence for an offence under section 324, P.P.C. Shall be treated as that for' launching a murderous assault upon Mst. Razia Bibi (P.W.9) and not for launching murderous assaults upon. Mst. Safia Bibi and Mst. Robina Bibi as the said two ladies had not been produced before the learned trial Court as prosecution witnesses and no justification in that regard had been furnished by the prosecution. The learned trial Court has already passed an order regarding concurrent running of the sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellant and it had already extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To him and, thus no fresh order is warranted in that regard from this Court. This appeal is dismissed with the above mentioned clarifications.
15. Murder Reference No.422 of 2001 is answered in the affirmative and the sentences of death passed by the learned trial Court against Javed Akhtar appellant are confirmed.