JUDGMENT RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---Muhammad Altaf alias Sheikh appellant has challenged the judgment dated 23-5-2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Attack in case F.I.R. No. 49 dated 12-6-2005 under section 302, P.P.C. Police Station Basal whereby he was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And was sentenced to death as Tazir and was also ordered to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in case of default to undergo S.I. For six months. The learned trial Court has also submitted Murder Reference bearing No.496 of 2006 under section 374, Cr.P.C. Seeking confirmation or otherwise of the capital punishment awarded to the appellant. Both the matters are interlinked and connected, so are being decided through this single judgment.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as set forth in the F.I.R. (Exh.PD/1) recorded on the statement (Exh.PD) of Naeem Akhtar son of Aslam Caste Awan, aged 32/33 years, cultivator, resident of Domeil is that his brother Wahid Iqbal had installed a flour machine in the house of one Azmat Khan son of Muhammad Khan residents of Tammna Domed. On 12-6-2005 at about 8-00 a.m. The complainant was present at the flour machine of his brother Wahid Iqbal. In the meantime his mother's brother Muhammad Nawaz son of Ghulam Ali and Sajjad Khan son of Azmat Khan residents of the same village also came there. He, his mother's brother Muhammad Nawaz and Sajjad Khan were sitting on a cot lying in the room where machine was installed. His brother Wahid Iqbal was just to start the machine, when at about 8 a.m. Muhammad Altaf alias Sheikh appellant armed with .12 bore repeater entered the room and challenged Wahid Iqbal that he would teach a lesson for hurling the abuses on the previous day. Muhammad Altaf made straight fire which hit Wahid Iqbal on his neck. Wahict fell down and died at the spot. Due to fear of the arm, they could not apprehend Muhammad Altaf who fled away along with the gun. The motive was stated to be suspicion of Muhammad Altaf that Wahid Iqbal had administered 'Tawiz' to the members of his family and for this reason, he had engaged in altercation with the deceased on the preceding night at about 7-00 p.m. In the presence of Muhammad Nawaz son of Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Iqbal son of Aitbaz Khan.
3. The appellant was sent up to face the trial after investigation, He was charged under section 302, P.P.C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in support of its allegation, The medical evidence has been adduced through Dr. Zafar Iqbal P.W.2 who had conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Wahid Iqbal deceased on 12-6-2005 at abut 11-30 a.m., in THQ Hospital Jhand. He found following injuries on his person:--
(1) A fire-arm wound of entry 3 cm x 2 cm on front of the neck slightly on the right from middle line.
Slight blackening was present.
(2) A fire-arm wound of exit 1 x 1 cm on the left side of the neck.
(3) A fire-arm wound of exit 1 x 1 cm on the left shoulder upper part.
5. He recovered one wad from the neck of the deceased and three foreign bodies (pellets) from backside of the left shoulder. He opined that the cause of death was due to Injury No. 1 leading to hemorrhage shock and death. All the injuries were anti-mortem and caused with fire-arm. The Injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Considered view that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant which we hereby maintain.
13. Considering the question of quantum of sentence we are also of the considered view that although the motive has not been proved against the appellant but from the manner in which the appellant had acted we have no doubt in our mind that the appellant had committed a barbaric act in a gruesome manner by not only firing on the vital part of the body of the deceased but also cut both legs and also burnt her body we do not find any extraordinary circumstance for reduction in the sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial Court and the appellant does not deserve any leniency,. Hence the sentence and conviction of the appellant is hereby maintained.
14. For what has been discussed above, we find no force in the appeal filed by the appellant which is hereby dismissed, sentence of death awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court is maintained and the murder reference is answered in the affirmative.