' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---Ijaz Ahmad alias Ajju appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, in case F.I.R. No,477 registered at Police Station Baghbanpura on 28-8- 1998 for offence under section 302, P.P.C. Vide judgment dated 27-4-2002 the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to death plus payment of Rs,3,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default whereof to suffer S.I. For six months.
2. Aggrieved by his above noted conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. Murder Reference No,397 of 2002 seeking confirmation or otherwise of death sentence imposed upon the appellant has also been placed before us. Both these matters are being' decided through this judgment.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as gleaned by F.I.R. Exh.P.G. Recorded at the instance of Khalid Javed, complainant/P.W.8, are that Ghulam Rasool father of the complainant used to ply Fruit Rehri to earn his livelihood. Ijaz Ahmad alias Ajju-appellant had purchased fruits of Rs,400 from him on different occasions. Ghulam Rasooldeceased demanded back the aforesaid amount time and again from the appellant who used to promise to pay back the same. On 28-8-1998 at about 10-30 a.m. The deceased went to the house of the appellant to get the amount. As the appellant was not available, the deceased came back. At about 12-30 p.m. The deceased was going to bazaar to purchase cigarettes, while the complainant and his uncle Sher Muhammad were following the deceased so as to see off Muhammad Arshad/P.W.9, a guest, who had come from Gujranwala. As soon as the deceased reached in front of the appellant's house, the appellant, while carrying a pistol in his hand, came out of his house and attacked upon the deceased. He caused two successive fires with hit the deceased on the left side of his chest, in view whereof the deceased fell down. The P.Ws., who were witnessing the occurrence, tried to apprehend the appellant. The appellant, while threatening the P.Ws. With pistol, declared that he had taught a lesson for demanding money. The appellant decamped from the spot. The complainant and his companions took the deceased in injured condition for medical treatment to Civil Hospital, Gujranwala, but he succumbed to the injuries before reaching the hospital.
' The motive, as stated above, was that the deceased was done to death by the appellant for demand back the money outstanding against the appellant on account of purchase of fruits on different occasions.
4. On 28-8-1998 the complainant appeared before Maqbool Ahmad, Inspector/P.W.14, at the police station and got recorded F.I.R. Exh.P.G. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer/I.O. Went to the hospital; prepared injury statement Exh.P.K. And inquest report Exh.P.L. And sent the dead body for port- mortem examination. Then the Investigating Officer went to the, spot; prepared its rough site plan Exh.P.N. And collected bloodstained earth which was sealed into a parcel through memo. Exh.P.H.
On 30-8-1998 the Investigating Officer got prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.P.E.) from Masood Ahmad Bhatti, Draftsman/P.W.7. On 16-9-1998 the Investigating Officer obtained the warrant of arrest of the appellant and handed over the same to Naeem Ullah, H.C./P.W.2, for execution. The appellant was arrested on 23-10-1999 by Muhammad Akram Khan, retired S.-I./P.W.12, and while in custody, on 31-10-1999 led to the recovery of .30 bore pistol P.4 and on unloading the same, five live bullets P.5/1-5 were recovered. The pistol and the bullets were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.D. After completion of investigation, the appellant was sent up to face the trial.
5. To prove' its case at the trial, the prosecution produced fourteen witnesses in all and after tendering in evidence the reports of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.O. And Serologist Exh.P.P. Closed its side.
6. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded his innocence and false implication in the following words:--- "The complainant is of bad character and a criminal. More than 25 cases of recovery of narcotics, illicit arms, gambling, attempted murders and murder have been registered against him. He has been convicted and sentenced in$8/10 cases of narcotics. The brother of the complainant Imdad alias Madi is also involved in almost the same number of cases of similar nature and has been convicted and sentenced in 7/8 cases. The police used to arrest the father of the complainant i.e. The deceased of this case, for compelling the appearance of the complainant and his brother before the police in the cases registered against them. The police used to humiliate and disgrace the father of the complainant for the misdeeds of his, sons. Two days prior to the death of Ghulam Rasul, the complainant, Sadiq, Kali, Sheru Machi and Ayyubi were apprehended by Baghbanpura Police while gambling in the house of the complainant. The police also took the deceased Ghulam Rasul to the police station and disgraced him as well. They were got free by one Saeed Bajwa alias Saddu Nae after giving Rs,5,000 as illegal gratification to the police. The complainant had a suspicion that I had supplied the spy information against them. On the day of occurrence, the father of the complainant severely reprimanded the complainant for his involvement in the criminal activities due to which the father of the complainant had to suffer humiliation and disgrace in his old age. The father of the complainant also abused him. The complainant became angry and infuriated. He fired at his father due to which the deceased met his death. Thereafter, the complainant party in connivance with the police fabricated a false story and falsely involved me in this case due to the suspicion of supplying spy information against the complainant. The complainant party shifted the place of occurrence. The P.Ws. Were not present and have deposed falsely due to their relationship with the deceased and the complainant."
' Neither the appellant made his own statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor did he produce any witness in his defence. He, however, tendered in evidence a photostat copy of F.I.R. No,103/2000 as Mark-A and closed his defence evidence.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Khalid Javed was a chance witness, who was related to the deceased and was inimical towards Ijaz, as he admitted that on Ijaz's information Khalid Javed was roped in many cases relating to narcotics; that Arshad was also related to the deceased and was resident of a place which was at a distance of two Kilometers from the spot and there was no special occasion for him to be present in the house of the deceased on the date of occurrence; that the prosecution failed to prove the motive; that the F.I.R. Was, in fact, registered later on, after due deliberations. Reliance was placed upon Haroon alias Harooni v. The State and another 1995 SCM R 1627.
8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General for the State submits that it was a daylight occurrence; that both the witnesses have plausibly explained their presence at the time of occurrence; that the P.Ws. Had no reason to involve the appellant in a false case; that their statements are supported by the medical evidence and corroborated by the circumstances of the case like the lodging of F . I . R. Promptly.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have also gone through the record.
10. The occurrence took place in broad-daylight at 12-30 p.m. Ghulam Rasool deceased who was father of the complainant was taken immediately to the hospital. However, Ghulam Rasool lost his life before reaching the hospital. So leaving the dead body in the care of his uncle Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Ilyas, the complainant went to the police station and the F.I.R. Was recorded at 1-30 p.m. In the circumstances, it can safely be said that the F.I.R. Was lodged promptly, leaving little room for false implication. Both the P.Ws., undeniably, knew the appellant previously; hence, it was not a case of misidentification or non-identification. The statements of both the witnesses are consistent as far as occurrence and implication of appellant is concerned. Arshad, who was son-in-law of the deceased, has plausibly explained his presence in the house of the deceased on the day of occurrence. He and complainant were extensively cross-examined on this point. Both of them have stood the acid test of cross-examination. During cross-examination, it was brought on the record that the wife of Arshad P.W. Was daughter of the deceased that out of the wed-lock a son had born. Before the occurrence, wife of Arshad and her son were staying in the house of the deceased. So one day prior to the occurrence, Arshad went to the house of his father- in-law in order to meet his wife and child, after closing his shop at about 9-00 p.m. The witness explained that on the insistence of his wife, he stayed in the house of his father-in-law over night.
Similar statement has been made by the complainant. Both the eye-witnesses have also made consistent statement as to how the deceased was taken to the hospital. Arshad stated that the deceased was taken on a motorcycle by Khalid Javed and the motorcycle was driven by some one else. As far as he was concerned, he reached the hospital in a rickshaw. Similarly, Khalid Javed stated that he took his father on a motorcycle which was being driven by Azam. He further stated that he and his uncle Sher Muhammad had accompanied Ghulam Rasool while injured. He did not state that Arshad was also with him on the motorcycle. So far as Arshad is concerned, he had no previous enmity or whatsoever against the appellant, so as to depose against him falsely.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, no reliance could be placed on the statement of Khalid Javed, as he was involved in a number of cases relating to sale of liquor and other narcotics. We are afraid that if the statement of a witness is otherwise confidence inspiring and is in consonance with the probabilities fitting in the circumstances of the case, then the involvement of a witness in some cases would not be a reason to discard his evidence. We would like to reproduce the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Haroon alias Harooni v. The State and another 1995 SCM R 1627 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, hereunder:--- "....The general rule, however, is that the statement of a witness must be in consonance with the probabilities, fitting in the circumstances bf the case and also inspire confidence in the mind of a reasonable prudent man. If these elements are present, then the statement of worst enemy of an accused may be accepted and relied upon without corroboration, but if these elements are missing, then statements of a pious man may be rejected without second thought."
' We would also like to quote hereinbelow the following dictum of the apex Court, relating to appreciation of evidence, laid down in the case of Niaz v. The State PLD 1960 SC 387.
"Whenever interested persons claiming to be eye-witnesses of an occurrence charge persons against whom they have some motive for false implication, with the commission of the offence, the first question to be considered is whether in fact they saw the occurrence and were in a position to identify the culprits. If there be no reason to doubt that they in fact witnessed the occurrence and were in a position to identify the offenders, the further question arises as to whether they can be relied upon for convicting the accused without corroboration. In cases where such interested witnesses charge one person only with the commission of the offence, or where the number of persons whom they name does not exceed that which appears from independent evidence or from circumstances not open to doubt to be the true number of culprits, their evidence may, in the absence of anything making it unsafe to do so, be accepted without corroboration, for, substitution is a thing of rare occurrence and cannot be assumed, and he who sets up the plea of substitution has to lay the foundation for it...."
' As noted earlier, in /his case F.I.R. Was lodged promptly. This factum is sufficient proof of presence of P. Ws. At the time of occurrence. The statements of both the witnesses are fully supported by the medical evidence, as the seat of the injuries is the same as narrated in the F.I.R. G Direct evidence is also corroborated by the factum of abscondence of the appellant. The appellant was arrested by Muhammad Akram Khan, S.-I./P.W.12, on 23-10-1999 almost after a year of the occurrence. P.W.2 Naeem Ullah/A.S-I., P.W.13 Faqir Ullah/S.I. And P.W.14 Maqbool Ahmad/Inspector stated about the abscondence of the accused and brought on record the documentary evidence. Their statements are worthy of credence. Even otherwise, the appellant remained unable to explain as to why he did not appear before the police or any Court till a year. The occurrence took place in front of his house. The case was registered within an hour. He could not say that he was not aware of the registration of the case.
11. As regards the motive, it is not denied that the deceased used to sell fruits on a Rehri. The complainant made a truthful statement by stating that the accused had not purchased fruits on credit from his father in his presence and he did not know the dates on which the accused had purchased fruits from his father. However, the cross-examination continued and it was brought on record that it was correct that his father used to tell him and talk in house whenever he went to the accused for recovery of money. So the defence itself brought on record that the deceased used to talk in the house and used to go to the house of the appellant for recovery of loan.
Now coming to the defence plea. Not only the same is revolting to the common sense but it is also not supported by an iota of evidence.
' The place of occurrence has not been denied. Why a son would choose mid of the day and a Chowk for committing the murder of his father. On the one hand, it was suggested to the complainant that the deceased felt annoyed over involvement of the complainant in narcotics cases. On the other hand, it was suggested to the P.Ws. That two days prior to the occurrence, the complainant, his father, Sadiq, Kali, Sheru Machhi and Ayyubi were taken by the police of Police Station Baghbanpura and the accused were set free by the police after accepting illegal gratification of Rs,5,000 given to the police by one Saeed Bajwa. It was suggested to Arshad P.W.
That the above noted persons were apprehended by Baghbanpura Police in a gambling case. If the deceased himself was involved in gambling, then, perhaps, he should not have reprimanded his son for his involvement in some criminal activities. There is nothing to support the bald allegation against the deceased, his son and others were taken by the police for gambling two days prior to the occurrence. It was never suggested to the Police Officer that the deceased -was involved in any criminal case. He used to earn his living through honest means. Similarly, Arshad P.W. Also earned his living by honest means and there is no record that any criminal case was ever registered against him. It was not suggested to the Investigating Officer that it was Khalid Javed, who had murdered his father. The defence plea, being without any substance, is rejected.
13. The upshot of the whole discussion is that the prosecution successfully proved its case against the appellant through direct evidence, which was supported by medical evidence and corroborated by the factum of the abscondence of the appellant and circumstances of the case like the lodging of F.I.R. With promptitude. This appeal is dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is upheld. The death sentence is confirmed. The murder reference is answered in the affirmative.