' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J.--- This appeal with leave of this Court is directed against judgment, dated 28-2-2005 of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Criminal Appeal No,186-J of 2000 filed by appellant Muhammad Ishaq was dismissed and murder reference sent by trial Court for confirmation of death sentence was answered in affirmative.
2. The prosecution story as narrated by complainant Inayatullah (P.W.8) in F.I.R. No,538 dated 19-9- 1997 lodged at Police Station Ugoki, Sialkot is that he is working in United Cargo, Samberial and is resident of Muradpur. On the fateful day i,e, 19-9-1997 at about 2-00 p.m. He came to his house and saw appellant Muhammad Ishaq who is his son-in-law was inflicting Chhuri blows to his wife Mst.
Latifan Bibi and daughter Mst. Robina. He tried to rescue them but he was threatened for life if he came .Near. On hue and cry his sons P. Ws. Namely Azhar Iqbal and Mazhar Iqbal attracted to the place of incident. The appellant fled away along with weapon of offence. Meanwhile, many people reached to the place of occurrence. As a result of successive Chhuri blows Mst. Latifan Bibi and Mst.
Robina succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that appellant had forbidden his wife Mst. Robina (deceased) for attending the marriage of his brother Muhammad Abdullah, at this the relations became strained and deceased Mst. Robina left for the house of her parents.
4. On 22-9-1997 appellant was arrested and after usual investigating he was sent up to face trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot.
5. Lady Doctor Balqees, W.M.O. (P.W.10) conducted post-mortem of deceased Mst. Latifan Bibi and Mst. Robina and found following injuries:-- Mst. Latifan Bibi "(1) An incised wound 1-1/.2 c.m. x 1 c.m. Oval obliquely on front of left side of neck, skin deep 4 c.m.
Below lower margin of mandible.
(2) An incised wound 1 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely on the left side of forehead 1 c.m.
Above left eyebrow.
(3) An incised wound 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely on left side of forehead near hairline.
(4) An incised wound 1-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely on right side of neck near jaw.
(5) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. Bone deep obliquely on back of head below of occipital region.
(6) An incised wound 8 x 1-1/2 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely on back of neck on upper part of neck.
(7) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m muscle on front of left side of chest obliquely 7 c.m. From left breast nipple.
(8) An incised wound 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely on left side of chest in lower part 1 c.m.
Lateral to epigastriom.
(9) An incised wound 4 c.m x 1 c.m. Muscle deep horizontal near umbilicus on right side of abdomen.
(10) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep oblique on supra pubic region.
(11) An incised wound 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m muscle deep oblique on front of right axilla.
(12) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely on the back of right side of chest in upper part 1 c.m. From midline,
(13) An incised wound 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely on back of right chest 3 c.m. Below injury No,12.
(14) An incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely on back of right chest on lower part.
(15) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely back of right chest 7 c.m. Lateral to injury No,14.
(16) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Going deep on back of left chest on lower part.
(17) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely on front of right shoulder. Mst. Robina Bibi . (1) An incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep was present obliquely on left side of jaw.
(2) An incised wound 2-1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m muscle deep obliquely on left side of jaw 2 c.m. Lateral to injury No, 1.
(3) An incised wound 2-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely.On left side of neck in upper part 1 c.m. Lateral to injury No,2.
(4) An incised wound 1-1/2 x 1 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely 1 c.m below injury No,2 on front of upper neck.
(5) An incised wound 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely in front near the left ear lop.
(6) An incised wound 6 c.m. x 1 c.m. Below chin muscle deep, horizontal.
(7) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. Cutting cricoi (laryngeal) conrtilate, transverse in the upper neck.
(8) An incised wound 2 'c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. Cutting tracheal cartilate transverse on front of lower part of neck.
(9) An incised wound 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely on right side of neck below jaw.
(10) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 1/2 c.m muscle deep obliquely on right side of neck below lower jaw.
(11) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely in front of right upper part of neck.
(12) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely in front of neck near sternoclavicular joint, on right side.
(13) An incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely on left side of neck above the clavicle.
(14) An incised wound. 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Muscle deep obliquely on right side of front of chest below the clavicle.
(15) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Going deep into chest cavity obliquely on back of lower chest near middline right side.
(16) An incised wound 2 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. Muscle deep oblique on back of left lumber region.
4. At trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 prosecution witnesses.
5. Appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied the case of the prosecution and claimed innocence. He neither examined himself on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor led any evidence in his defence.
6. On the conclusion of trial, appellant was found guilty under section 302, P.P.C. And was sentenced to death on two counts. He was directed to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of deceased Mst. Latifan Bibi or in default to undergo S.I. For six months. He was also directed to pay compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Mst. Robin Shaheen or in default whereof to further undergo six months' S.I.
7. Feeling aggrieved, appellant filed Criminal Appeal No,186-J of 2000 before learned Lahore High Court, Lahore which was dismissed as stated above.
8. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 6-7-2006 to consider that in the circumstances of the case, the appellant cannot be awarded death sentence as his case comes under sections 306(c) and 307(c) read with 308(2), P.P.C.
9. We have heard Malik M. Kabir, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant, Mian Asif Mumtaz, learned D.P.-G. Punjab and complainant appearing in person at length and have gone through the record and proceeding of the case in minute particulars.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that appellant is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case on mere suspicion and ill-will of the complainant. According to him, it was unseen incident which was not witnessed by anybody as the eyewitnesses have not proved their presence at the spot at the relevant time. He contended that appellant took the plea of alibi which was not considered by the Courts below. He further contended-that the incident took place inside the house of complainant. He contended that number of injuries on the persons of deceased were more than 30 which show that sufficient time was consumed in the infliction of injuries and if the P.Ws. Were present at the spot, they must have intervened and could not be silent spectators at the spot. He contended that Mst. Robina Shaheen is the wife of appellant and in such circumstances appellant cannot be granted death sentence.
11. On the other hand learned D.P.-G. Punjab supported the impugned judgment and contended that ocular account evidence furnished by complaint directly connect appellant with the act of inflicting Chhuri blows on the persons of deceased corroborated by recovery of weapon of offence i,e, blood-stained Chhuri. He further contended that appellant had butchered his wife and mother- in-law over a very petty matter. The active role of appellant in the commission of the crime being natural, straight forward and consistent with the medical evidence as well as in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case has been rightly believed by the trial Court as well as the learned High Court. He contended that there were no extenuating circumstances available which should justify to take out the case of the appellant from the infliction of the normal penalty of death.
12.
12. In our considered view, prosecution has proved its case against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt who murdered his wife and mother-in-law in callous manner. The evidence on record clearly proves the act of participation of appellant in the commission of the offence as he caused repeated Chhuri blows upon the persons of both deceased. The case of prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence, medical evidence and recovery of weapon of offence. The prosecution has succeeded in bringing on record sufficient evidence whereby the guilt of appellant and his active participation in the commission of offence has been established. The ocular account furnished by complainant Inayatullah (P.W.8) is fully corroborated by medical evidence, motive, and recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of appellant and positive report of serologist leaving no room for doubt at all. It is the settled principle of law that death sentence can be awarded on circumstantial evidence, provided that circumstances constituted a chain and its no link is missing and their combined effect is that the guilt of the accused established beyond any shadow of doubt. The brutal and atrocious manner in which the appellant committed murders of his wife and his mother-in-law does not call for any leniency in the sentence. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Muhammad Ajmal v. The State PLD 2003 SC 1 wherein this Court had held that the brutal and atrocious manner in which the petitioner committed the cold-blooded murders of his wife and her mother does not call for any leniency in the sentence. Moreover, the learned trial Court as well as the learned High Court have elaborately discussed every aspect of the case and have dealt with the same in detail, leaving no room for further consideration. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.