' IJAZ-UL HASSAN KHAN, J.---This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, dated 8-5-1997, dismissing Criminal Appeal No, 71 of 1997, filed by Muhammad Zaman appellant challenging his conviction and sentence of death awarded by Sessions Judge Jaffarabad at Dera Allah Yar, by virtue of his judgment dated 28-3-1997.
2. The prosecution case as setup in the F.I.R is that on day of occurrence i,e, 16-9-1994 at about 8- 30 a.m, Sikandar, brother of Jaffar complainant, after watering the rice crop was coming back to house while their brother Anwar and mother Mst. Nihalan were standing near the pond adjacent to their house, when co-accused Gul Hassan alias Abdul Wahab and appellant Muhammad Zaman sons of Jaffar, having shot-guns, came out from their house and fired two shots each upon Sikandar, who after sustaining injuries, collapsed on the ground and died instantaneously. The accused thereafter went back to their house and by firing, one shot each, killed Mst. Naseeban Bibi, wife of co-accused Gul Hassan. The accused while escaping from the scene of occurrence declared that they had killed the deceased on account of indulging in siyakari' .
3. After registration of the case, S.I. Wazir Khan, P.W. Investigating Officer accompanied by the complainant proceeded to the spot, prepared injury sheets and inquest reports of the deceased and dispatched the dead bodies to the hospital for postmortem examination. Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim, Medical Officer D.H.Q, Dera Allah Yar on 16-9-1994 at 3-00 p.m., conducted postmortem examination of the deceased. The Investigating Officer also prepared site plan at the pointation of the complaint. He collected blood-stained earth and four empties of 12 bore from the spot. The appellant was arrested on 25-9-1994 with the crime weapon i,e, shot-gun. The crime empties and shot-gun were sent to Firearm Expert for opinion and report. The crime empty were found to have been fired from the shot-gun No, 736 in question.
4. On completion of investigation, accused Muhammad Zaman was challaned to the Court for trial.
Charge was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case and substantiate the charge produced 11 witnesses in all, whereafter, accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. In the above statement the accused denied the prosecution allegations took the stance that he was involved in the case on account of enmity and suspicion. He did not opt to make statement on oath in terms of section 340(2), Cr.P.C. He declined to produce evidence in defence.
5. On conclusion of the trial, vide judgment dated 28-3-1997 learned Sessions Judge, Jaffarabad at Dera Allah Yar, having found the appellant guilty of the murders of Sikandar and Mst. Naseeban Bibi, convicted him under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to death.
' The appellant preferred appeal before the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, which was dismissed vide judgment impugned herein.
6. Co-accused Gul Hassan, was subsequently arrested and vide judgment dated 22-2-2003 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaffarabad at Dera Allah Yar, was convicted under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer life imprisonment as Tazir with payment of Rs,200,000 as compensation to be paid to legal heirs of the deceased. Gul Hassan, feeling aggrieved, filed appeal before the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta. The appeal was partly accepted vide judgment dated 23-2-2006 The conviction and sentence to the extent of murder of Mst. Naseeban Bibi was set aside and appeal against conviction and sentence of murder of Sikandar was dismissed. The aforesaid judgment has also been assailed before this Court through Criminal Appeal No, 781 of 2006. Dr. Babar Awan, Advocate, representing Gul Hassan informed the Court that during pendency of appeal Gul Hassan has expired in jail. The appeal, as such, stands abated and dismissed.
7. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 26-3-1999 to A consider the limited question of sentence awarded to appellant Muhammad Zaman.
8. We have heard Sardar Muhammad Ghazi, Advocate for appellant and Qari Abdul Rasheed, Advocate for the State. We have also re-examined the evidence carefully and minutely in order to ascertain as to whether or not a case for lesser punishment is made out.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Sikandar deceased had illicit intimacy with Mst. Naseeban Bibi deceased and in 'gharit' the murders were committed in order to save the family honour. The learned counsel also contended that the impugned judgment has not been recorded after a careful and proper consideration of the attendant relevant facts and circumstances and sentence of life imprisonment would be adequate to meet the ends of justice.
On the basis of said contentions, learned counsel has made a prayer to convert the death sentence into one of life imprisonment.
10. Learned counsel representing the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and maintained that the normal sentence for the offence of murder is death sentence and this is to be awarded as a matter of course except where the Court finds some mitigating circumstances which may warrant lesser sentence namely imprisonment for life. The learned counsel reiterated that there is no mitigating circumstance in favour of appellant to withhold normal penalty of death imposed on him by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.
11. It is well-settled that normal penalty for `Qatl-e-Amd', is the sentence of death and when the case is fully proved by the prosecution it must be inflicted. Though in some cases where the accused is able to prove that he was deprived of the capability of self-control or was swayed away by circumstances immediately preceding the act of murder B or there was an immediate cause leading to grave provocation or in case of doubt as to who in case of several accused persons, was responsible to cause the fatal injury, the sentence of life imprisonment or lesser sentence may be imposed but since it is a double murder case and is cold blooded, therefore, we are of the view that the appellant deserves no sympathy.
12. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we find that appellant and his brother late Gul Hassan co-convict had taken the lives of two innocent persons in gruesome manner on mere suspicion. There is absolutely no evidence on the file suggestive of the fact that the deceased had been indulging in `siahkari' which compelled the appellant and his brother Gul Hassan to shot them to death. It may be reiterated here that appellant in his statement recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C, has not taken such plea and merely denied having participated in the occurrence, maintaining that he had no hand in the affair and he was falsely charged due to enmity and suspicion.
13. Keeping in view the material on record, the case before us, does nal represent the mitigating circumstances providing ground for substituting death sentence into life imprisonment. The Courts below have carefully and rightly analyzed the evidence and their concurrent findings on this question cannot be disturbed. Ansar Ahmad Khan Barki v. The State and another, (1993 SCM R 1660) and Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 304).
14. Pursuant to above, finding no substance in this appeal we dismiss the same and maintain the impugned judgment of conviction.