' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No,163 of 2001 (Muhammad Taj v. State, Criminal Revision No,68 of 2001 (Muhammad Nazir v. Abdul Waheed and others) and Murder Reference No,246 of 2001 (sent by the learned trial Court for confirmation of death sentence or otherwise), as they arise out of the same judgment, dated 26-3-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Attock for the triple murder of (1) Ghulam Fatima, (2)
Tasleem Akhtar, and (3) Muhammad Aslam, whereby, following sentences and convictions were passed:--
(i) Appellant Muhammad Taj was convicted (for the triple murder under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to death on three counts. He was also sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,25,000 in default whereof six months' R.I. Under section 449/34, P.P.C. With a compensation of Rs,50,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of each deceased on three counts as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default whereof to further undergo six months' S.I. Each;
(ii) Appellant Ghulam Farid was also convicted (for triple murder) under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to death on three counts. He was also sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,25,000 in default whereof six months' R.I. Under section 449/34, P.P.C. With a compensation of Rs,50,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the each deceased on three counts as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default whereof to further undergo six months' S.I. Each;
(iii) Appellant Abdul Waheed was too convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life for the murder of deceased Aslam. He was also sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,25,000 in default whereof six months' R.I. Under section 449/34, P.P.C. With a compensation of Rs,50,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default whereof to further undergo six months' S.I.
2. Brief facts of the case, as explained by Muhammad Nazir complainant P.W.11 (in the F.I.R. Exh.P.M.) are that he is real brother of deceased Ghulam Fatima and Muhammad Aslam while deceased Tasleem Akhtar was his "Bhabhi" (wife of Aslam deceased); that on the fateful day and time he was near his house when appellant Taj armed with a .12 bore gun, Farid armed with .32 bore revolver and Abdul Waheed armed with an iron rod came there whereas deceased ladies were standing outside; that Taj fired at Ghulam Fatima who 'fell down followed by a fire by Ghulam Farid; then Taj fired at Tasleem Akhtar who fell down followed by a fire at her by Ghulam Farid; that deceased Aslam tried to save his life and went into the house of Nawab Khan, bolted the door of the room from inside, appellant Waheed had broken the door with the iron rod when Taj fired at Aslam who fell down followed by a fire by Ghulam Farid, Waheed caused him injuries with the iron rod; that all the three persons breathed their last at the spot; that all the accused decamped from the spot and that the motive set by the prosecution was that one Arshad had illicit liaison with the daughter of Taj who met her daughter in the house of Aslam deceased.
3. After having completed legal formalities, challan was submitted by the police against the accused before the learned Court of competent jurisdiction, where, accused denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, produced fifteen prosecution witnesses during the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, submits that appellant Taj has already died which factum has been verified by the learned counsel for the complainant, so, this appeal to the extent of Taj appellant stands abated and now we would discuss the case of remaining two appellants, namely, Ghulam Fareed and Waheed.
' Appellants' learned counsel, in support of this appeal vehemently contends that it was an unwitnessed occurrence; that no independent eye-witness has been produced by the prosecution to prove their case; that the eye-witnesses are interested and _chance witnesses; that motive was not proved and the same, if any, was against Arshad which was three months prior to the occurrence, so, there was no question to react; that there is a conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence; that P.W.12 and P.W.13 had grudge against the appellants; that the recovery witnesses are chance witnesses; that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt and that the appellants are entitled to acquittal by this Court.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that eyewitnesses, namely, Saifullah (P.W.12) and Asif Pervaiz (P.W.13) are not related to any of the parties, so, they are most independent and natural witnesses of the occurrence as their houses are only at a distance of few steps from the spot; that no question of false implication arises in this case as there is no ground of deep-rooted enmity between the parties and moreso that it is a rare phenomenon to substitute the real culprits; that the ocular account in this case is corroborated by the medical evidence coupled with its further corroboration from the fact= of recovery and positive report of the Fire-Arm Expert; that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond an iota of doubt; that three deceased were done to death in a very callous manner; therefore, the appellants have rightly been awarded the normal penalty of death; that it is law of the land when the murder case is proved against the accused to the hilt then the only sentence in law is death and that this appeal is liable to be dismissed. While advancing his arguments, learned counsel for the complainant submits that he would forcefully press his Criminal Revision No,68 of 2001 filed for enhancement of sentence of appellant Abdul Waheed from life to death.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also given anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
7. There are three deceased persons in this case i.e. Complainant's real sister Ghulam Fatima and real brother Muhammad Aslam while deceased Tasleem Akhtar was his "Bhabhi" (wife of Aslam deceased).
' Convictions and sentences of accused were upheld in circumstances. [pp. 393, 394, 395] A, B, C, D, E, F & G The occurrence in this case had taken place on 10-4-1998 at 6-00 p.m., the matter was reported to the police at 7-00 p.m. In which names of the appellants, role played by them, names of the deceased and names IA of the eye-witnesses have been mentioned. So, it can be said that it was a promptly lodged F.I.R. Crime-empties were recovered from two places. From the place of deceased Ghulam Fatima five cartridges of .12 bore and 10 cartridges of .32 bore were recovered while from near the dead body of Muhammad Aslam deceased five cartridges of .12 bore and six of .32 bore were taken into possession.
9. All the appellants in this case were arrested on 12-4-1998. On the pointation of Taj appellant (whose appeal stands already abated due to his death in 2002 as was confirmed by the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab) .12 bore gun along with five live cartridges was recovered while from Ghulam Farid appellant .32 bore revolver along with six live cartridges was taken into possession. Report of the Fire- B Arm Expert is positive in nature. An iron rod was. Recovered from appellant Waheed.
10. Now we would come. To the ocular account and its corroboration. In this case three eye- witnesses, namely, Muhammad Nazir complainanr (P.W.11), Saifullah (P.W.12) and Asif Pervaiz (P.W.13) appeared to prove the prosecution case. Though Nazir is closely related to the deceased.
But it is settled law of the land that mere relationship C of an eye-witness with 'the deceased cannot discard his testimony, so on that score his testimony inspires confidence. As far as testimony of Saifullah and Asif is concerned they are not only residents of the same vicinity but their houses are only at a distance of few steps from the place of occurrence coupled with the fact that they are not D related to 'any of the parties and had no reason to falsely depose against the appellants as they had no animus with the appellants or relationship with the deceased party.
Nothing could be shaken despite their cross examination.
11. Apart from above, Dr. Shahida Perveen (P.W.5),. Who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Tasleem Akhtar, found 11 injuries on her person which are of fire- arms contusions and abrasions which were the result of fall on the ground.
12. There is yet another aspect of the case. The time between the injuries and death is half an hour while between death and post-mortem examination is 18-24 hours which coincides with the time of occurrence. On the same day she conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ghulam Fatima and found four injuries on her person. P, W. 9 Dr. Faiz Muhammad Farooqi conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased.
He found five fire-arm injuries while rest were caused with blunt weapon. The ocular account in this case is corroborated by the medical evidence coupled with its further corroboration from the tactum of recovery and positive report of the Fire-Arm Expert.
13. It would not be out of place to mention here the motive aspect of the case. The appellants had done the three innocent persons to death due to the reason that the said Taj had taken back his daughter from the house of Aslam deceased as the said daughter had come there to meet one Arshad, a nephew of the said Aslam deceased. As the appellants have done the three deceased persons to death for no fault of them, therefore, they cannot be treated leniently because if they had no soft F corner for the others then they are liable to be dealt with severally and in such-like cases it is settled law of the land that deterrent punishments "should be awarded to make an example for the others.
14. In view of the above resume of facts, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond an iota of doubt, therefore, the sentence of death awarded to Ghulam Farid appellant on three counts is hereby confirmed and . The impugned judgment of conviction to his extent is maintained in toto. So far as question of sentence to the appellant Abdul W aheed is concerned, there is no mention whether the life imprisonment awarded to him twice would run concurrently or not. We note that the occurrence had taken G place in 1998, the impugned judgment of conviction was passed in 2001 and now we are at the end of 2006, so, on that score while maintaining his conviction and sentences in toto both the sentences. Awarded to him shall run concurrently. Murder reference is answered in the affirmative.
For reasons given above, the connected revision petition is dismissed having no merit.