Tariq Shamim, J.--Appellant, Muhammad Latif, involved in case bearing F.I.R. No, 66/2004, dated 25.3.2004, for offence under section 302 P.P.C, registered at Polk e Station Saddar Hasan Abdal, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Attock, who, vide his judgment dated 01.7.2004, convicted the appellant under section 302(b) P.P.C. and sentenced him to death for committing the murder of Abdul Waheed, deceased, with a direction to pay Rs, 1,00,000/- as compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. (Ex.PF/1) lodged on the complaint (Ex.PF) of Faiz-ur- Rehman complainant, is that on 25.3.2004 at about 9.30 a.m., the complainant was collecting fodder for the cattle in his field while Abdul Waheed, the nephew as well as son-in-law of the complainant, was also collecting hay in his field. Muhammad Latif armed with a chhurri arrived there and told Abdul Waheed that he would teach him a lesson for abusing him. The appellant thereafter inflict a number of chhurri blows at the abdomen and other parts of the body of Abdul Waheed. Apart from the complainant Muhammad Akram and Iftikhar Hussain who were working in their fields nearby, rushed to the place of occurrence and attempted to rescue Abdul Waheed deceased, however on being warned by the appellant, they did not come close to the appellant who thereafter cut the throat of Abdul Waheed causing his death at the spot.
The motive behind the murder was that the complainant had obtained the services of the appellant as labourer for the construction of his house and had paid advance wages to him. As the appellant despite having been paid did not come to work, he was admonished by Abdul Waheed, deceased, which annoyed the appellant and ultimately resulted in the said incident.
3. After supply of copies as required under the law, charge was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as 11 witnesses. Liaqat Shah Constable, Police Station Saddar, Hasan Abdal (PW-1) escorted the dead body to the D.H.Q. Hospital, Attock and after the post-mortem examination the doctor handed over to him the last worn clothes of the deceased along with post-mortem papers which he produced before the Investigating Officer. Falak Sher, LHC, Police Station Saddar Hasan Abdal (PW-2) was handed over two sealed parcels containing blood-stained earth and the chhurri which he deposited in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Lahore. Wasiq Nisar Patwari Halqa Babaraki, (PW-3) on 26.3.2004 visited the place of occurrence, prepared the site-plan in triplicate (Ex.PB, Ex. PB/1 and Ex.PB2) and produced the same before the police. Mahmood Khan (PW- 4) was the witness of recovery of chhurri P-4. Abdur Rehman (PW-5) identified the dead body of Abdul Waheed deceased at the time of postmortem examination. Mir Alam (PW-6) was the witness of recovery of blood-stained earth. Dr. Muhammad Akhtar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Attock (PW- 7) on 25.3.2004 conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and issued the postmortem report (Ex.PE). Muhammad Ijaz, MHC, Police Station Sadar Hasan Abdal (PW-10) on 25.3.2004 received complaint (Ex.PF) from Salim Ullah, Sub-Inspector and recorded formal F.I.R. (Ex.PG/1). He was handed over two sealed parcels containing blood-stained earth and blood-stained chhurri which he kept in malkhana and on 13.4.2004 he handed over; the said parcels to Falak Sher Constable for onward transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Lahore. Salim Ullah, Sub-Inspector, Chowki Hattian, Police Station Hazro (PW-11) was the Investigating Officer. He recorded the statement (Ex.PF) of Faiz-ur-Rehman complainant and sent the same to the Police Station for registration of formal F.I.R. He inspected the spot, recorded the statements of the PWs under Section 161, Cr.P.C., prepared the inquest report (Ex.PH), on 4.4.2004 arrested the accused Muhammad Latif and on his pointation recovered the chhurri the weapon of offence, vide recovery memo. Ex.PC. He also registered a separate case under Section 13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance No, XX of 1965 against the appellant after the recovery of chhurri. After completion of investigation he found the appellant guilty and submitted the challan to the Court.
Faiz-ur-Rehman (PW-8) and Muhammad Akram (PW-9) furnished the ocular account of the occurrence. The learned Deputy District Attorney after tendering in evidence report of the Chemical Examiner pertaining to earth (Ex.PK) and that of the Serologist (Ex.PK/1), report of the Chemical.
Examiner pertaining to chhurri (Ex.PL) and that of the Serologist (Ex.PL/1) closed the prosecution case.
4. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. and in response to the question "Why this case against you and why the PWs deposed against you'?" the appellant replied as under:-- All PWs have deposed against me falsely. In fact Abdul Wahid was done to death by some unknown person at early hours of morning. No one has seen the occurrence. People of village when visited their field, found dead body of deceased under the tree on grass. Fida Husain informed remaining people of village. Complainant thereafter concocted false story and falsely involved me in this case. I left my house on hearing the news from my house attracted to place where dead body of deceased was lying Fida Husain met me on way who was proceeding to P.S. and told me that dead body of Wahid was found there. Police arrived at spot at 7.00 a.m. and I was too present there. Dead body was sent to hospital. In meanwhile Faiz. Rehman arrived at spot and he asked police that he was having some suspicion about me as on 18.3.2004 there was a quarrel between deceased, me and complainant on issue of my marriage. I was having inimical terms with Akram PW as such he deposed falsely against me. The dispute was that he has been throwing the filth from Nalha into my land. I was taken to PS by police and was falsely involved in this case."
The appellant neither opted to appear as his own witness in disproof of the allegations levelled against him as required u/S. 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor did he adduce any evidence in his defence.
5. The learned trial Court after concluding the trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence through Criminal Appeal No, 442 of 2004 whereas the learned trial Court has sent Murder Reference No, 440 of 2004 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence awarded to the appellant. Faiz-ur-Rehman complainant filed Criminal Revision No: 224 of 2004 for enhancement of compensation awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased. All these matters are being decided together through this single judgment.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellant through any credible evidence; that the motive could not be established by the prosecution at the trial; that he weapon of offence was not recovered from the appellant but was in fact planted by the police; that there were material contradictions and improvements in the statements of the eyewitnesses and that the learned trial Court did not appraise the evidence in proper perspective as otherwise the appellant would have been acquitted.
7. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the appeal filed by the appellant for his acquittal and contended that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the appellant through promptly lodged F.I.R., evidence of eye-witnesses which was credible and trustworthy, motive which was duly proved at the trial and the recovery of blood-stained chhurri from the appellant.
8. We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record with their able assistance.
9. It has been noticed that Abdul Waheed deceased as well as Muhammad Latif appellant are real nephews of Faiz-ur-Rehman the complainant (PW-8). According to the complainant, on 25.3.2004 at about 9.30 a.m., the appellant committed the murder of Abdul Waheed deceased by causing multiple injuries with chhurri. The motive behind the murder was that the complainant had obtained the services of the appellant as labourer for the construction of his house. As the appellant, despite having been paid in advance, did not come to work, he was admonished by the deceased which annoyed the appellant and ultimately resulted in the said incident. The other eye- witness of the occurrence Muhammad Akram (PW-9) has furnished a credible account of the occurrence and has given details of the events leading to the murder of the deceased. Both the eye-witnesses are elderly persons aged about 70 years each. Their presence at the spot had not been seriously questioned by the defence which even otherwise is natural and well explained. The complainant being uncle of the deceased and his father-in-law as well, was present in his fields at the relevant time with the deceased where they were collecting fodder for the cattle. Although being an elderly person he did make an attempt to intervene when the appellant was causing injuries to the deceased, however, on being threatened of dire consequences he naturally refrained from interference. The presence of this witness is well explained and natural as has been discussed above. Insofar as Muhammad Akram (PW-9) the other eye-witness is concerned, since it was morning time, he was also collecting fodder from his fields which were close to the place of occurrence and on the hue and cry of Abdul Waheed deceased he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the appellant commit the murder of the deceased. This witness is an independent person who is neither related to the complainant nor the appellant and has no animosity or ill will to depose against the appellant. Keeping in view the number of injuries caused by the appellant to the deceased, it can be safely said that the occurrence must have taken a considerable time thus, there was sufficient time for Muhammad Akram (PW-9) to reach the place of occurrence from the fields. It was argued by the learned counsel for the defence that the witnesses did not make any attempt to save (sic). It is pointed out that both the witnesses were elderly persons in their advance ages who were threatened by the appellant of dire consequences if they came near. In the given circumstances the witnesses were justified in not coming to the rescue of the deceased. It is worth noting here that the deceased as well as the appellant are real nephews of Faiz-ur-Rehman (PW-8) hence, there is absolutely no plausible reason for this witness to falsely implicate the appellant in the crime. For what has been discussed above, we are inclined to accept the testimony of the eye-witnesses furnished at the trial as being credible and trustworthy.
10. Insofar as the motive behind the murder of the deceased is concerned, although no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the motive, however, as has been laid down by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a number, of cases, lack of motive or absence of motive is of no consequence as it relates to the state of mind of an accused and can be formed even at the spur of the moment. Further, the occurrence had taken place in daylight and the F.I.R. was lodged with reasonable promptitude by the complainant therefore, there was no chance of misidentification or tutoring or premeditation.
11.The eye-witness account has been fully supported by the unimpeachable medical evidence furnished by Dr. Muhammad Akhtar (PW-7) who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found 20 injuries caused by a sharp edged weapon on different parts of the body of the deceased including one on the neck as stated by the witnesses in the F.I.R. as well as in their statements before the learned trial Court. All the injuries were declared as. ante mortem and were caused by a sharp edged weapon. The probable time between the death and post-mortem examination was declared as between 7 to 10 hours. Thus, the medical evidence is conclusive as to the locale of injuries, the weapon used and the time of occurrence.
12.The appellant was arrested on 4.4.2004 and during interrogation made a disclosure that he could lead to the recovery of chhurri P-4 from a Burrah in village Babaraki and consequently he led the police party to the said place from where he got recovered bloodstained chhurri which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PC. Mahmood Khan (PW-4) the recovery witness proved the recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant. This witness is distantly related to both the sides and had no plausible reason to falsely depose against the appellant. The Investigating Officer while appearing as PW-11 also corroborated the statement made by Mahmood Khan (PW-4) in respect of recovery of blood-stained chhurri from the appellant. On analysis the Chemical Examiner vide report (Ex.PL) opined that the chhurri was stained with blood.
The scrapings were sent to the Serologist and in the report (Ex.PL/1) it was held that the chhurri was stained with human blood. In view of the statements made by the witnesses as well as the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist the factum of recovery of chhurri, the weapon of offence, stands fully proved.
13.Insofar as the defence of the appellant is concerned, in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. he stated that the deceased was killed by some unknown persons in the early hours of the morning and that the occurrence had not been witnessed by any one. He further stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case on account of a quarrel with the deceased and the complainant on the issue of marriage. Me further maintained that he was on inimical terms with Muhammad Akram (PW-9) who had also falsely deposed against him. As has been stated earlier, Muhammad Akram (PW-9) is an independent witness who is neither related to the complainant party nor has any enmity with the appellant. Insofar as false implication of the appellant on account of issue of marriage is concerned, the same has . remained unsubstantiated. It is once again reiterated that the complainant (PW-8) had absolutely no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in the crime as the deceased as well as the appellant are equally related to him being his nephews.
14.From the foregoing discussion we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond a shadow of doubt, through credible ocular account, the evidence of motive, the recovery of weapon of offence and the medical evidence.
15. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, we have noticed that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased in cold blood and had caused 20 injuries on his person including the one on the throat which was from on side of the neck to the other side. The murder of the deceased was committed in a merciless manner by the appellant, hence, in view thereof, he does not deserve any leniency in so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned.
16.In sequel to the foregoing, we DISMISS the appeal filed by Muhammad Latif appellant and maintain the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court. The sentence of death is CONFIRMED and the Murder Reference is answered in the AFFIRMATIVE.
For reasons recorded hereinabove, Criminal Revision No, 224 of 2004 is dismissed.