' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---In this Criminal Appeal, with the leave of the Court, judgment of learned Single Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court dated 7-10-2005, passed in Criminal Appeal No,1528 of 2002 and Criminal Revision No,1048 of 2002, both arising out of judgment of the trial Court of Sessions Judge Bhakkar dated 29-7-2002, in Sessions Case No,10 of 2002, arising out of F.I.R. No,61 dated 25-4-2002, Police Station City Bhakkar, has been challenged by the appellant.
2. The relevant facts of this case are that on 25-4-2002, at 2355 hours complainant Abdul Majeed made a report to Noor Muhammad, Sub-Inspector at Police Station City Bhakkar stating before him that he and his brother Muhammad Rasheed, were working in Thal Textile Mills, Bhakkar for the last four months. On the said date at 2315 hours, when he along with his brother Abdul Rasheed and two other persons Zafar Iqbal and Nazar Hussain was on duty in Khata No,3 of the Mills, three persons, Altaf Hussain (present appellant), Muhammad Aslam and Alam Sher, who were also working in the same Mills exchanged hot words with his brother, over some trifle dispute, whereafter the two accused Alain Sher and Muhammad Aslam (both acquitted by the trial Court) caught hold of Abdul Rasheed from his arms, while present appellant Altaf Hussain took out a Chhuri from the fold of his Shalwar and caused one blow on the left side of ribs and other on the right side of his neck. At this juncture, the complainant as well as Zafar Iqbal and Nazar Hussain tried to intervene, in order to save Abdul Rasheed, whereupon appellant Altaf Hussain inflicted another Chhuri blow, which landed on the right hand of the complainant Abdul Majeed. Thereafter, all the three culprits managed to escape from the place of occurrence, while Abdul Rasheed, the injured brother of the complainant, during the process of being shifted to the hospital succumbed to such injuries.
3. All the three nominated accused in the F.I.R., after completion of investigation of the crime, were challened before the trial Court, where charge for commission of offence under sections 302/34 and 337-F(i)/34, P.P.C. Was framed against them on 15-7-2002, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Before the trial Court, the prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined in all nine witnesses and produced documents Exh.P.A to Exh.P.P., which contained statement of Abdul Majeed dated 25-4-2002, F.I.R., memo. Of possession of Parchat, postmortem report of Abdul Rasheed, injury statement of the deceased, inquest report of Abdul Rasheed, M,L.R. Of Abdul Majeed, injury statement of the complainant, site plans, memo. Of possession of blood stained earth, memo. Of possession of Chhuri (weapon of offence), site plans, two reports of Chemical Examiner and two Reports of Serologist. Out of these witnesses, P.W.7 Abdul Majeed and P.W.8 Zafar Iqbal were the two eye-witnesses of the occurrence, who categorically deposed about the manner of occurrence and the role of the three accused in the commission of crime.
4. On completion of prosecution evidence, section 342, Cr.P.C. Statements of all the three accused persons i,e, present appellant, Altaf Hussain and acquitted accused Alam Sher and Muhammad Aslam were recorded by the trial Court on 25-7-2002, wherein they all denied the manner of occurrence, and asserted that during the scuffle, which had taken place between the two rival groups of the labourers, one belonging to Bhakkar and the other to Liya, some unknown assailant caused such injuries to the deceased Abdul Rasheed. However, none of the three nominated accused in the crime either opted to examine himself under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. On oath, nor they produced any other evidence/witness in defence.
5. The trial Court of learned Sessions Judge Bhakkar, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, vide his judgment dated 29-7-2002, came to the conclusion that the guilt of present appellant Altaf Hussain, for causing qatl-e-amd of deceased Abdul Rasheed, was proved from the prosecution evidence, while the prosecution failed to prove its case against the other two accused. Accordingly co-accused Alam Sher and Muhammad Aslam, extending them the benefit of doubt, were acquitted from the charges framed against them by the trial Court, while the present appellant Altaf Hussain was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with further direction for payment of Rs,100,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation in terms of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. He was further convicted under section 337-F(i) for causing hurt to P.W.7 Abdul Majeed and on this account sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with payment of Rs,2000 as daman. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently, with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
6. The appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court against his conviction, preferred Criminal Appeal No,1528 of 2002 before the Lahore High Court, while the complainant Abdul Majeed preferred Criminal Revision Application No,1048 of 2002 for seeking enhancement in the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court, as, according to him, there were no mitigating circumstances for awarding lesser punishment of imprisonment for life to the appellant instead of normal sentence of death penalty. Before the High Court, both these matters were heard together and disposed of, vide impugned judgment dated 7-10-2005, in the manner that appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed and sentence awarded to him by the trial Court was maintained. As a consequence, criminal revision filed by the complainant Abdul Majeed was also dismissed.
7. Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court arguing this appeal on behalf of the appellant Altaf Hussian, strongly contended that the conviction awarded to the present appellant by the trial Court, as maintained by the High Court in its impugned judgment, is squarely based on the evidence of two eye-witnesses of the occurrence i,e, P.W.7 (Abdul Majeed) and P.W.8 (Zafar Iqbal), but the two Courts below have failed to take into account material improvements made by these witnesses in their evidence, which tends to show that they deliberately deposed falsely before the trial Court. Learned counsel next contended that the two Courts below, while upholding the conviction of the appellant and awarding him sentence of imprisonment for life, committed another illegality that the plea set up in defence by the appellant in his section 342, Cr.P.C.
Statement was totally overlooked, though in such plea the appellant has given plausible defence about the manner of occurrence and his innocence. In this context, learned counsel also made reference to the case of Muhammad Yaqub v. State PLD 1969 Lah.548 and Ashiq Hussain v. State PLD 1994 SC 879. In the end, Mr. Bhatti also stressed on the issue of motive, which, according to him, though taken by the complainant in the F.I.R., was deviated and remained unproved in the prosecution evidence.
8. Conversely, Mian Asif Mumtaz, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab, after making brief reference to the deposition of the two eye-witnesses, vehemently contended that, despite lengthy cross-examination by learned defence counsel on all the material points of occurrence, the depositions of these eye-witnesses remained un-shattered in cross-examination. So far as the question of minor improvements made by them in their evidence is concerned, the same related only to the role of co-accused Muhammad Aslam and Alam Sher, who have already been acquitted by the trial Court, by extending them the benefit of doubt. He further contended that P.W.7 Abdul Majeed is an injured witness of the occurrence, who had no ill-motive or grudge against the appellant for his false involvement in the crime, thereby letting of the actual culprit of the crime, who was responsible for causing fatal blows to his deceased brother Abdul Rasheed. As regards little significance of the motive in such cases, learned Deputy Prosecutor General made reference to the judgments of this Court in the case of Khan v. State 2006 SCMR 1744 and Zulfiqar Ali v. State 2008 SCMR 796. He concluded his submissions with a note that from the prosecution evidence, coupled with the documents brought on record as Exh.P.A. To Exh.P.P., from all four corners, the guilt of the present appellant for causing qatl-e-amd of deceased Abdul Rasheed and injury to P.W.7 Abdul Majeed was fully proved, thus, the concurrent findings of the two Courts below call for no interference from this Court. So also the quantum of sentence.
9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel, and, with their assistance, carefully perused the case record. Indeed the two eye-witnesses of the occurrence, when in the witness box, attempted to make some improvements in their case, but it was only relating to the role of co-accused Muhammad Aslam and Alam Sher, who, by extending them the benefit of doubt, have already been acquitted by the trial Court. In so far as the role of present appellant Altaf Hussain is concerned, it was specifically stated in the F.I.R. That both the fatal injuries to the deceased Abdul Rasheed were caused by him, when he took out the Chhuri from the fold of his Shalwar and did so in presence of several persons, including the P.Ws. Abdul Majeed and Zafar Iqbal, while third witness of the occurrence i,e, Nazar Hussain was given up by the prosecution.
From a careful reading of the deposition of the two eye-witnesses, who were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the learned defence counsel before the trial Court, it is evident that they remained un-shattered in cross-examination and deposed about the whole occurrence in a confidence inspiring manner.
10. In such circumstances, mere non-prove or weakness of motive of occurrence was not enough to dislodge the case of prosecution, which was otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant in his section 342, Cr.P.C. Statement, had taken the defence of a quarrel between the two rival groups, but he did not bother to examine even a single witness in his defence, though as per his suggestion such quarrel had taken place between a number of persons from the rival groups. In such circumstances, when the appellant failed to substantiate his plea in defence, the grievance against the trial Court and the Appellate Court in this regard, is without substance.
11. After overall assessm ent of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that the evidence of two witnesses of the occurrence is natural, firm, free from material contradiction, and confidence inspiring. Based on such evidence, conviction awarded to the appellant by the trial Court, as maintained by the High Court in its impugned judgment is, therefore, fully justified.
' This being the position, this appeal is dismissed.