1. ' IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.---By this judgment, I propose to decide Criminal Appeal No,S-01 of 2005 F.I.R.
2. No,108 of 1998 was registered at Police Station Ghouspur, District Kashmore-Kandhkot for which appellant Dil Murad convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 149, P.P.C. R.I for twenty five years and also awarded compensation of Rs,100,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased. In case of non-payment of compensation the appellant will suffer S.I for the period of two years, The appellant was also convicted under section 337-H(ii), P.P.C. And was convicted to undergo R.1 for three months. It was also ordered that the sentence awarded to the appellant shall run concurrently except the sentence on account of failure of payment of compensation. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended. The appellant through the present appeal assailed the impugned judgment dated 7-12-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot.
3. ' The case of prosecution is that on 9-12-1998, complainant Punhal lodged report with Police Station Ghouspur stating therein that her sister Mst Mumtaz Khatoon was married to accused Dil Murad who was residing near his house. The maternal nephew of Dil Murad , Ali Hassan Arbani and his divorced sister Mst, Subhani was also residing with him. On the fateful day at 4-00 p.m, the complainant heard fire shot reports and cries of ladies, on that according to him, he and his brother Shafi Muhammad went running towards the house of the appellant along with Muhammad Jhangal. It is stated in the F.I.R. That they saw accused Haji Dil Murad having iron pipe and rifle and absconding accused Goro with gun and accused Andal with lathi and two unknown culprits having hatchets. They saw that accused Dil Murad and Goro fired at Mst. Mumtaz and Mst. Jumi, who by sustaining fire shot injuries fell down. In order to intervene Mst. Subhani came running but she was too fired by the accused. The F.I.R. Further disclosed that villagers came running but the accused restrained them. In the meanwhile, appellant Dil Murad disclosed that Mst. Mumtaz was 'Kari' with Sheroo Lolai. Mst Jumi was `Kari' with Bahram Lolai. The accused dragged the dead bodies of the ladies and then went away. The charge was framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. ' During trial the prosecution has examined Punhal (the complainant) at Exh. 6 who produced the F.I.R. At Exh-6-A. P.W Muhammad Jhangal at Exh. 7, who produced his 164. Cr.P.C. Statement at Exh.7-A, P.W. Hoondal at Exh.10 who produced mashirnama of place of wardat as Exh.10-A, Inquest report of deceased lady as Exh. 10-B to 10-D, mashirnama of arrest of accused at Exh.10-E.
5. Mashirnama of recovery of rifle and iron pipe from appellant as Exh. 10-F. Dr. Abdul Subhan as Exh.11 who produced post mortem report of Mst. Subhani, Mst. Mumtaz and Mst. Jumi at Exh. 11-A to 11-C.
6. Investigating Officer Nizamuddin as P.W.5 at Exh.12 who produced mashirnama of recovery of clothes of deceased at Exh.-12-A. After completion of prosecution witnesses, statement under section 342. Cr.P.0 of appellant was recorded and he was convicted as stated above.
7. ' I have heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bijarani, learned counsel for complainant Mr. Muhammad Saleem `GN' Jesar and Mr. Naimtullah Bhurgari, learned State Counsel and have gone through the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties. P.W.1 Muhammad Punhal has deposed that deceased Mst. Mumtaz Khatoon was his sister. She was married to appellant Dil Murad and was living with him. Deceased Mst. Jumi was his cousin and deceased Mst. Subhani was his `Puphat' cousin. She was divorced by her husband.
8. Both ladies Mst. Jumi and Mst. Subhani were living with accused Dil Murad. He stated that P.W. Shafi Muhammad is his brother and P.W. Jhangal is his 'Masai'. He further stated that on the day of incident when he and other P.Ws. Were present in their house and attracted at the firearm reports and cries of ladies. They saw that five culprits namely Dil Murad with rifle and iron pipe, Goro son of Alawaluddin with gun. Andal son of Alawaluddin with lathi and two unidentified culprits with hatchets. Accused Goro and Andal are brothers of appellant Dil Murad. He stated that Dil Murad and Goro fired from their weapons upon Mst. Mumtaz and Mst. Jumi and when Mst. Subhani intervened on which accused Goro fired upon Mst. Subhani. Three ladies lost their lives at the spot.
9. The motive for commission of the offence was that appellant accused Dil Murad stated that Mst.
10. Mumtaz was 'Kari' with Sheroo and Mst. Jumi with Bahram. He further stated that after killing the deceased ladies the appellant along with other co-accused dragged the dead bodies. During cross-examination the witnesses stated the same facts though there was lengthy cross but nothing favourable came out. P.W.2 Muhammad Jhangal stated that on 9-12-1998 at 4-00 p.m he heard firing reports and cries of ladies from the house of accused. Dil Murad. He went to the house of accused Dil Murad along with complainant Muhammad Punhal and P.W. Shafi Muhammad. He saw that accused Dil Murad having rifle and iron pipe. Accused Goro with gun, accused Andal with lathi and two unidentified culprits armed with hatchets and within their sight accused Dil Murad and Goro fired from their respective weapons upon Mst. Mumtaz and Mst. Jumi and when Mst.
11. Subhani tried to intervene, she also sustained injuries and after some time she succumbed to injuries. Appellants issued threats to the witnesses and appellant accused Dil Murad declared that Mst. Mumtaz was 'Kari' with Sheral Lolai and Mst. Jumi with Bahram. The witnesses further stated that the appellant Dil Murad caused iron pipe to Mst. Mumtaz and Mst. Jumi on their heads and they also dragged the dead bodies of deceased to some distance. He stated that he was examined under section 161, Cr.P.C. And so also under section 164; Cr.P.C. The defence conducted lengthy cross-examination but no material in favour of appellant is achieved. P.W.3 Hoondal who produced mashirnama of wardat inquest report and arrest and recovery of appellant Dil Murad has stated that on 9-12-1998, police inspected the place of wardat in his presence and in presence of complainant Punhal who showed the place of incident to police. The place of wardat is situated in the house of appellant accused Dil Murad. The police prepared the mashirnama of place of wardat, inquest report of three dead bodies and he further stated that on 26-12-1998, police arrested accused Dil Murad in his presence and in presence of Abdul Karim and on the same day the accused has produced rifle and iron pipe. This witness was also cross-examined by the defence but has not rebutted his evidence. P.W.4 Dr. Abdul Subhan, Senior Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem report upon dead-bodies and he supported the ocular evidence. P.W.5 Nizamuddin, Investigating Officer, he has stated that on 9-12-1998, he was S.H.O. At Police Station Ghouspur, on the same day complainant Punhal lodged F.I.R. And after lodging the F.I.R. He went to place of wardat and prepared mashimama of place of wardat in presence of mashirs Hoondal and Abdul Karim. The place of wardat was situated in the house of Dil Murad. He prepared inquest report of three dead bodies in presence of mashirs Hoonda and Abdul Karim. He also arrested appellant Dil Murad and effected recovery of rifle and iron pipe in presence of mashirs Hoondal and Abdul Karim. He was cross-examined by the learned defence counsel. He also stated that he has recorded 161, Cr.P.C. Statement of P.Ws. And so also got recorded 164, Cr.P.C. Statement of witnesses. Lengthy cross-examination was conducted but nothing was achieved in favour of the appellant. P.W.4 Dr. Abdul Haq conducted autopsy of the dead bodies of three ladies and from the evidence of P.W.4. Dr. Abdul Haq it is established that three ladies had died due to unnatural death.
12. ' I have heard learned counsel for the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is conflict in between ocular and medical evidence. He further contended that the witnesses are interested and participants and they are related to the deceased. He further contended that no empty bullets or empty cartridges were recovered from the place of wardat at the time of visit of place of wardat. In the circumstances, he contended that the prosecution has failed to establish guilt against the appellants and defence has succeeded while creating doubt in the prosecution case.
13. ' Messrs Muhammad Saleem `GN' Jesar counsel for the complainant and Naimtullah Bhurgari learned State Counsel have argued that this is daylight incident and place of wardat is situated in the house of the appellant. The F.I.R. Was promptly lodged and, there is no enmity between the parties. The witnesses who are related to the accused also having no enmity with the appellant to falsely involve the appellant in heinous offence of triple murder. Learned counsel also contended that the dead bodies were recovered from the house of the appellant and the appellant had not controverted this piece of evidence in cross-examination or in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. In the last learned counsel have argued that the prosecution has established its case beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt and they fully supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
14. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their assistance gone through the evidence recorded during trial. P.W. Punhal and P.W.
15. Jhangal were unanimous on each and every aspect of the commission of offence corroborated evidence of each other. The medical evidence is clearly in conformity with the ocular evidence. The evidence of P.W.4, Dr. Abdul Haq corroborated the ocular evidence which is furnished by P.Ws.
16. Punhal and Jhangal. Learned counsel failed to point out any material contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws. Punhal and Jhangal. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that medical evidence is conflicting with the ocular evidence but he has not pin pointed any contradictory piece of evidence in ocular evidence and in medical evidence. The prosecution has established circumstantial evidence has produced cogent and trustworthy evidence through P.W. Hoondal and P.W. Nizamuddin. The recovery of rifle and iron pipe is proved from the reliable evidence of P.W.
17. Hoondal and P.W. Nizamuddin. P.W. Hoondal, P.W. Punhal and P.W. Jhangal are related to appellant but they have deposed against him. The appellant has not denied the piece of evidence that the three dead bodies of ladies had been recovered from his house. This piece of evidence also corroborates the ocular evidence. From the ocular evidence the motive is proved that the appellant had to kill the ladies by leveling allegation of `Karap'. Learned counsel made attempts on the ocular evidence which is furnished by P.W. Punhal and Jhangal and argued that they are interested witnesses but the learned counsel lost side of the fact that both the P.Ws. Are also related to the accused and are nearer relatives to each other. The motive is also proved from trustworthy evidence of the prosecution witnesses. There is no hard and fast rule that the evidence of related witnesses are not to be relied upon. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to establish that the witnesses are interested or hostile. After considering all the aspect of the case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has succeeded to establish its case against the appellant without any shadow of doubt.
18. ' Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellant is maintained.
19. ' Above are the reasons of my short order, dated 19-4-2010, by which I had dismissed the appeal.