' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.110/J of 2001 filed by Lal Din, appellant who was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to death on four counts with further direction to pay Rs. One lac each as compensation to legal heirs of all the four deceased. The conviction and sentence was recorded by Judge Special Court (STA), Gujranwala vide judgment, dated 27-1-2001. The deceased in the instant case were Ghulam Abbass, Javed Iqbal, Mst. Nasreen and Mst. Rafia Bibi.
2. Briefly stated the facts oft the case are that on the night of 26-5-1996 at about 10 p.m,. Ghulam Abbass, brother of the complainant, Mst. Raffia his real sister, Javed Iqbal and Mst. Nasreen went to attend the Majlis of Maulana Gulfam at Khiali Darwazian in car No.3200-FDN. At about 1.15 a.m. At mid night, Lal Din and Miraj Din both armed with rifles .222 came at the house of the complainant and inquired about Ghulam Abbass. The mother of the complainant woke him up and told about the arrival of Miraj Din and Lal Din and that they both were asking about Ghulam Abbass. The complainant along with Kausar Ali and Shaukat Ali who had come to house of the complainant were standing in the Bismillah Chowk when at 1-30 a.m. Ghulam Abbass along with Mst. Rafia, Javed Iqbal and Mst. Nasreen came in a car which was being driven by Ghulam Abbass. When the car reached in front of the house of Muhammad Sardar, Miraj Din and Lal Din who were armed with .222 rifles signaled the car to stop and Lal Din started indiscriminate firing. After the occurrence, both the accused took away the rifle of Ghulam Abbas. All the four injured were shifted to hospital but they succumbed to their injuries. Muhamrnad Ail and Ghulam Sarwar were alleged to be abettors.
' The motive alleged was that Ghulam Abbas had given huge amount to. Lal Din and his father Muhammad Ali and that there was a dispute between Javed Iqbal and Bano regarding separation.
3. The investigation of the case was started by Nabi Ahmad S.-I. (P.W.16). He after receipt of information, went to hospital, recorded statement of the complainant Muhammad Ilyas, inspected the dead bodies, prepared injury statements and inquest reports and took into possession the blood-stained earth vide memos. Exhs.PB and PD. Six crime empties were secured vide memo.
Exh.PF. Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Sarwar accused were arrested on 9-6-1996 while Miraj Din accused was taken into custody on 19-8-1996. Lal Din accused was found guilty. Sarwar, Miraj Din and Muhammad Ali accused were found to be innocent.
4. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 22 witnesses in all. Then the Special Public Prosecutor tendered in evidence reports of the Chemical Examiner, Serologist and Forensic Science Laboratory and closed the case of the prosecution. Statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which except Lal Din, the remaining accused claimed false implication. Lal Din took the plea of Ghairat. In his defence, he produced Master Muhammad Yousaf as D. W.1 and himself appeared as D.W.2. After conclusion of the trial, Lal Din was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset submits that he does not challenge the conviction on merits but there are mitigating circumstances warranting reduction of sentence from death to life. According to learned counsel, it was a case of grave and sudden provocation and that the murder was committed on account of Ghairat and that this plea of the appellant was supported by Mst. Shabana alias Bano P.W.7. Further submits that appellant is father of six children and this may be treated as a mitigating circumstances. At this stage, learned counsel also on merits submits motive and ocular account have been disbelieved by the trial Court and that the conviction was based on the solitary statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the State submits that it was a case of promptly lodged FIR., ocular account in fully corroborated by the medical evidence and that there is no extenuating circumstance in favour of the appellant to award the lesser sentence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record. In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place at 1-30 mid night on 27-5-1996 and the matter was reported to the Police by Muhammad Ilyas through written complaint Exh. PA at 2.20 a.m. The same night at Civil Hospital and the formal F.I.R. Exh.PA/1 was recorded by Muhammad Arshad, Head Constable. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 3 kilometers. It is a case of promptly lodged F.I.R.
8. According to F.I.R. And the statements of the witnesses, the appellant while armed with .222 rifle committed the murder of four deceased. As observed earlier, learned counsel does not challenge the conviction on merits but submits that there are mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence of the appellant. If as alleged by the appellant, it was a case of Ghairat, there was no occasion for the appellant to, have committed the murder of Javed Iqbal and Mst. Rafia because they did not commit any such act upon which the appellant flared up and fired at them. The allegation of illicit relations, if any; was against complainant Muhammad Ilyas and Ghulam Abbas, the deceased. The occurrence had not taken place in the house of the appellant so there was no question of the appellant seeing Mst. Nasreen and the deceased Ghulam Abbass in compromising position. Mst. Shabana alias Bano (P.W.7) though has stated before the trial Court that the deceased Ghulam Abbas had illicit relations with wife of the appellant but it cannot be lost sight that she is real sister of Lal Din, appellant and she after the murder of her husband Javed Iqbal at the hands of Lal Din, the present appellant, she wanted to save the appellant from death sentence.
The appellant being father of six children is not a mitigating circumstance for the reason that the deceased who are four in numbers must have the children, more than the appellant.
After having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that it was the appellant who committed the intentional murder of four deceased persons and there is no mitigating circumstance in his favour. The plea of ghairat taken by the appellant in his statement under sections 342 and 340(2), Cr.P.C. Has no legs to stand, if the venue of the occurrence is taken into consideration apart from the fact that Javed Iqbal and Mst.
Rafia, both deceased had nothing to do with the illicit relations, if any, as alleged by the appellant, was going on between Ghulam Abbass and Mst. Nasreen. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the convict appellant is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded against him by the trial Court is maintained in toto. The death sentence of Lal Din appellant is confirmed.