' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJUM- UZ-ZAMAN, J.-Appellant Zafar Iqbal son of Ashiq Ali was tried for the murder of Mst. Farrah Nayyar in case F.I.R. No,887/2005, dated 10-11-2005 registered under sections 302/392/411, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station, Sargodha Road, Faisalabad by the Judge. Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad who vide judgment, dated 5-12-2005 convicted the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to death as well as to pay compensation amounting to Rs, 5,00,0000 as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default whereof to undergo six months' S.I. Re was also convicted under section 7(a), Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs,2,00,000 or in default whereof to further undergo 5 years' Her was further convicted under section 392, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs, 1,00,000 or in default where of to further undergo five years'
R.I. Hence the instant appeal calling in question the impugned judgment. Trial Court has also made a reference (Murder Reference No,30T/2005) seeking confirmation of death sentence awarded to the appellant. Both these matters are being disposed of together.
2. Precisely the prosecution case as narrated in F.I.R. Exh.PD/1 lodged on the statement Exh.PD made by Nayyar Mehmood complainant (P.W.7) is that he was serving in Ibrahim Fabrics. Khurrianwala and on 10-11-2005 (the fateful day) he along with his brother Tariq Mehmood and Aamar Mehmood reached in his house a 11-30 a.m. As he was to attend a "Waleema ceremony" and while entering into the house, they heard the shrieks from inside the room and rushed to the said room where the found his wife Mst. Farrah Nayyar lying in pool of blood, her throat was cut and she was crying whereas Zafar Iqbal appellant who was a neighbour of his brother Tariq Mehmood, was busy in removing the golden bangles of his wife after chopping off her left hand from wrist joint whose clothes were also stained with blood. The complainant along with his brother Tariq Mehmood and Aamar Mehmood apprehended the appellant who tried to escape from the scene along with blood-stained dagger, golden ornaments and cash. His wife Mst. Farrah Nayyar succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The appellant along with crime weapon, golden ornaments and cash amounting to Rs,3700 was handed over to Abdul Rahman, S.I.,- P.W. 11 by the complainant.
3. Abdur Rehman, S.I., P.W. 11 after complying with legal formalities submitted challan before the trial Court where prosecution produced thirteen witnesses including Nayyar Mehmood P.W.7 and Aamar Mehmood P.W.8, the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, to prove the charge against the appellant; trial Court also examined appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. While answering to the question, why this case against you and why the P.Ws. Have deposed against you? The appellant replied as under:- ' "I am innocent. The complainant and the P.Ws. Are inter se related to each other. I have been falsely implicated in this case. The fact of the matter is that Nayyar Mehmood was married with Mst. Farrah Nayyar since long but they remained issueless, which caused bitter differences between Mst. Farrah Nayyar and Nayyar Mehmood. Nayyar Mehmood, with the connivance of his cousin Aariiar Mehmood murdered Mst. Farrah Nayyar I was just passing in front of the house of Nayyar Mehmood where this occurrence took place. I was caught hold from the Bazar. They planted dagger p.14, goid ornaments and currency notes i.e, P.8 to P.13 against me to strengthen the prosecution'case provided by Nayyar Mehmood. The in laws of Nayyar Mehmood had not joined even the burial ceremony or police investigation and they deposed against the complainant party but the police did not join them in the investigation and even my statement was not recorded correctly. Nayyar Mehmood is an influential person of Mohallah."
' Appellant neither made any statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor. Produced any evidence in his defence. Trial Court after appraisal of evidence available on record vide judgment, dated 5- 12-2006 convicted and sentenced the appellant as narrated earlier.
4. While challenging the legality of the impugned judgment learned counsel for the appellant argued that the circumstances of this case did not attract the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court and the trial Court had erroneously taken the cognizance in the matter, all the witnesses who had deposed before the trial Court were related inter se and their evidence had been relied upon by the trial Court without any independent corroborative piece of evidence admittedly, during the investigation nothing was recovered from the appellant and the entire case of prosecution rests upon the articles (case property) which was produced by the complainant before the police but the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment had erroneously relied upon the said evidence, according to the prosecution case clothes of the complainant were stained with blood but the said clothes of the complainant were never taken into possession by the agency and this fact is sufficient to doubt the presence of the complainant at the relevant time, that in fact the complainant had committed the murder of his own wife because they had no issue and the relations of the spouses were strained. On the contrary, learned Special Public Prosecutor while supporting the impugned judgment vehemently opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Heard. File perused.
6. Mst. Farrah Nayyar was stained in her house situated at Ameen Town, Faisalabad, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sargodha road, Faisalabad on 10-11-2005 at about 11-30 a.m. By the appellant. Complainant of this case namely Nayyar Mehmood P.W.7 who is also husband of the deceased, on hearing the shrieks of the deceased along with his brother Tariq Mehmood and his cousin Aamar Mehmood P.W.8 entered into the room and saw the lady lying in the pool of blood whereas appellant (Zafar Iqbal) after cutting throat of the. Lady was busy in removing the golden bangles from her arms, his clothes were also stained with blood at that time. The witnesses immediately apprehended the appellant at the spot and took into possession weapon of offence (dagger), golden ornaments and cash from the custody of appellant. They also informed the police with reached at the spot within few minutes of the occurrence and the custody of the appellant along with case property was handed over to Abdul Rehman, S.I. P.W.Ll who after .Complying with legal formalities arrested the appellant at the spot. Before the trial Court both the eye-witnesses namely Nayyar Mehmood P.W.7 and Aamar Mehmood P.W.8 while suppbrting the prosecution case deposed about the 'manner in which they had seen the occurrence and apprehended the appellant at the spot. Both of them were subjected to lengthy and searching cross- examination but we have observed that both of them remained stead fast and there is nothing in their evidence to doubt their credibility or to say that they had not seen the occurrence.
We have also observed that no a single question worth the name of enmity with the appellant was put to the witnesses or nay circumstances evidence' has been brought on the record to show that the complainant or the witnesses had any malice against the appellant to falsely involved him in this case. The statement of both the eye-witnesses have painted and very vivid and bright picture of the occurrence.
' Post-mortem examination was conducted by Lady Doctor Humaira Parveen P.W.5. This report supports the ocular account and affirms the location, duration and nature of injuries as narrated by the eye-witnesses. We have also observed that the matter was reported to the police within few minutes of the occurrence, the police reached at the spot and apprehended the accused. This promptness in lodging the F.I.R. As well as the arrest of the appellant at the spot is yet another factor to strengthen the prosecution case and renders ample corroboration and support to the prosecution case.
' After going through the contents of the F.I.R. As well as the evidence of the witnesses we are of the view that the circumstances of this case were sufficient to create sense of terror and fear among the people of the locality and in the circumstances. Trial Court had rightly taken the cognizance in the matter. Thus the arguments of the learned counsel with regard to the jurisdiction of the Special Court to take the cognizance in the matter have no force.
' It is well-settled that normally in the case of a single accused substitution by kith and kin of the deceased is a rear phenomenon. The appellant is the sole accused in this case who was apprehended on the spot along with crime weapon and was handed over to the police. The eyewitnesses who had no axe to grind, had supported the prosecution case while giving all the minor details of the occurrence. In the circumstances of the case, we have no reasons to doubt the credibility of the eyewitnesses whose presence at the spot was natural and also stands established from the data available on the record.
' The crux of the above discussion is that prosecution has proved its case to the hilt against the appellant, the instant appeal has no merits and the same stands dismissed.
' Death sentence awarded to the appellant is confirmed the murder reference is answered in the affirmative.