' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---The appellant Haq Nawaz along with Naveed Javaid, Zubaid and Anwar Bibi was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, for offence under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Vide judgment, dated 30-11-2001, the learned trial Court, while acquitting the aforesaid co-accused, convicted the appellant for offence under section 302(b), P.P.0 and sentenced him to death plus payment of Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of Mir Muhammad deceased, in default whereof to undergo S.I. For six months.
2. Haq Nawaz, convict/appellant, has challenged his conviction and sentence through the instant appeal. Murder Reference No,24 of 2002 seeking confirmation or otherwise of death sentence imposed upon the appellant has also been placed before us. We propose to decide both these matters through this judgment.
3. The brief facts of the case per complaint Exh.P.A. Recorded by Bahadar Ali, S.-I./P.W.9, at the instance of Allah Ditta, complainant/ P.W.6, which based the registration of formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1, are that on 20-5-1999 the complainant and Manzoor, both residents of Chak No,450/GB, went to the house of Mir Muhammad situated in Chak No,457/GB in connection with some piece of work of urgent nature. Mir Muhammad had gone to his land to cultivate cotton crop. The complainant and his companion went to the land of Mir Muhammad where Mir Muhammad and his son Muzammal/P.W.7 were present. At about 4-00 p.m. All of a sudden the appellant Haq Nawaz armed with rifle, Naveed, Javed, Zubaid, all armed with sticks, and Mst Anwar Bibi, empty handed, happened to come there and raised Lalkara that they would not allow to cultivate the cotton crop in the land, whereupon Mir Muhammad told them that he had got sanctioned mutation in his favour after paying price of the land and that if the price was paid back, there would be no need to cultivate the land by him. Meanwhile, Haq Nawaz fired a shot which hit Mir Muhammad on his left temporal, as a result of which he fell down. When the complainant and the P. Ws. Tried to apprehend the accused, Haq Nawaz started firing upon them but luckily they were saved. On the report of fires, the people from the locality came at the spot. The accused made good their escape.
Mir Muhammad in injured condition was taken to Civil Hospital Kanjwani where the doctor after giving medical aid referred him to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. As the injured was taken to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, so the matter could not be reported to the police. On 21-5-1999, Mir Muhammad died and his dead body was taken to Civil Hospital Kanjwani.
' The motive behind the occurrence was that Mir Muhammad-deceased, maternal nephew of the complainant, had purchased the land from Jahangir husband of Mst Anwar Bibi and due to that grudge the accused had committed the murder of the deceased.
4. On 21-5-1999, Bahadar Ali, S.-I./P.W.9,on receipt of information about the incident, went to Civil Hospital, Kanjwani, where the complainant got recorded his statement Exh.P.A. Which was sent to police station where formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 was registered. The Investigating Officer/I.O. Went inside the hospital; prepared injury statement Exh.P. D . And inquest report Exh.P.D./1 of the deceased and got post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased through Bahawal Sher, Constable/P,W.5. Then the Investigating Officer went to the spot; prepared its rough site plan Exh.P.N.; collected blood-stained earth and sealed the same into a parcel vide memo. Exh.P.G. On 2-6-1999 the appellant was arrested. The appellant, while in custody on the same date, led to the recovery of .7 mm rifle P.7 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.L. The Investigating Officer got prepared scaled site plan Exh.P.M. Of place of occurrence from Israr Hussain Shah, Patwari/P. W.8. After completion of investigation, the appellant along with his co-accused was sent up to face trial.
5. To substantiate its version at the trial, prosecution produced nine witnesses in all and after tendering in evidence the reports of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.P. And Serologist Exh.P.P./1 closed its side. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant pleaded his innocence and false implication in the following words:--- "This is a false case. It is unseen murder. The P.Ws. Are closely related inter se with the complainant and are inimical towards me. I used to restrain Mst Naziran Bibi wife of Mir Muhammad deceased not to keep on her illicit connections with Bahadar Ali the real brother of Rajjab Ali PW. Mumtaz Bibi the sister of Rajjab Ali was having unlawful relations with Lal Carpenter and I also had been pressurizing Rajjab Ali to control his sister. In the meantime Mir Muhammad was murdered. Rajjab Ali and Mst Naziran took the opportunity to enrope me falsely in this case. The P.Ws. Were not present at the spot. They have made false statements to link me with this occurrence."
' However, neither the appellant made his statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor did he produce any witness in his defence.
7. (sic) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter was reported to the police after an unexplained delay of more than twenty two hours; that the complainant was resident of a place which was situated at a distance of three miles from the place of occurrence and could not plausibly explain his presence at the time of occurrence; that Muzammal P.W. Is son of the deceased and was teen-ager at the time of occurrence and had no business to be present along with his father in the cotton field; that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the motive as set down in the F.I.R.; that in any case it was not a case of capital sentence, as a single fire was caused by the appellant and the motive remained shrouded in mystery; and that on the same evidence, remaining accused were acquitted.
8. - Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submit that the delay in lodging the F.I.R.
Stands duly explained; that both the P.Ws. had no previous enmity or against the appellant so as to involve him in a false case; that the ocular version is fully supported by the medical evidence and the recovery of rifle at the instance of the appellant; and that a single fire and absence of motive would not constitute a mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant; support the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record minutely. Allah Ditta uncle of the deceased and Muzammil son of the deceased furnished the ocular account before the learned trial court. Allah Ditta was resident of a different Chak, which was at a distance of three miles, while Muzammal resided with his father. It was claimed by Allah Ditta that he had gone to visit Mir Muhammad-deceased, while the later was present in his fields along with his son Muzammal P.W. And after the occurrence he took Mir Muhammad to Civil Hospital, Kanjwani, while he was injured. Muzammal also accompanied him. Due to precarious condition of Mir Muhammad the Doctor advised P.Ws. To take Mir Muhammad to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. Mir Muhammad was taken to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, where he lost his life. During that time the matter could not be reported to the police as the complainant party was busy in attempting to save the life of Mir Muhammad. The version of Allah Ditta is supported by independent evidence. The medico-legal report Exh.P.B. Of Mir Muhammad reveals that Mir Muhammad arrived at Hospital at 5-30 p.m., while the occurrence took place at 4-00 p.m. It also reveals that Allah Ditta-complainant was one of the persons who had taken Mir Muhammad to the hospital. His name is mentioned in the relevant column (Name of relative or friend). The report further reveals that instead of admitting Mir Muhammad in the Hospital he was referred to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. Dr. Munir Ahmad/P.W.3, who had attended to Mir Muhammad while he was injured at RHC, Kanjwani and also conducted post-mortem examination of the dead body of Mir Muhammad, stated before the learned trial Court that Mir Muhammad, while injured was brought by Allah Ditta at 5-30 p.m. At RHC, Kanjwani. He also stated about referring Mir Muhammad to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, immediately and during cross-examination he explained that death certificate issued by the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, was given to him. All these facts amply prove that Allah Ditta was present at the time of occurrence. Muzammal, who is real son of the deceased, would not leave his father bleeding and die in the fields waiting for Allah Ditta. Both Allah Ditta and Muzammal have no previous ill will or enmity whatsoever against the appellant so as to involve him in a false case. Both the P.Ws. Have given consistent, coherent, natural and convincing account of the occurrence. The intrinsic value of their evidence could not be shaken during cross- examination. No serious effort was made to challenge the presence of Muzammal at the scene of occurrence. The cross-examination conducted on him mostly relates to relationship of P.Ws. And it was suggested to him that his father and mother oftenly quarrelled with each other but the suggestion was denied. Similarly it was put to him why his father had purchased number of buffaloes from some other persons and owed a huge sum to the owners and some of whom might have murdered his father, this suggestion was also denied and the witness emphatically stated that it was the appellant who killed his father. This suggestion otherwise has no force as the occurrence took place at about "Assar time" and daylight was available. The appellant was known to the P.Ws. And no question of identification was involved. A son would not substitute a killer by an innocent person. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has plausibly been explained by the complainant.
Even otherwise in the absence of previous enmity the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Would not matter much. The ocular account is fully supported by the medical evidence and corroborated by the circumstances of the case. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant.
10. We have given our considerate and anxious thought to the argument of the learned counsel that it was a case of lesser punishment, as the prosecution came out with weak motive, which could not be proved and it was a case of single fire. It has been noticed by us that the appellant while armed with deadly weapon went to the scene of occurrence and took life of an innocent person. The shot was aimed at the head and face of the deceased, which speaks volumes about the intention of the killer. During cross-examination and in defence plea the appellant levelled wild allegation of immorality against Mst. Naziran wife of the deceased and Mst Mumtaz Bibi sister of Rajjab Ali-witness. E Presuming that the allegations were correct even then the appellant had no business to interfere in the private life of others. However, in the instant case, as already noted above, the allegations levelled by the appellant against womenfolk of the deceased and complainant party are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Syed 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 norrhal penalty of death to a murderer or to reduce the sentence of death to a F lesser punishment." It is further observed that "--- 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." We are afraid; we remained unable to find any mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.
11. Murder Reference is answered in the affirmative. Death sentence is confirmed.