' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.--Through this petition, the petitioner has impugned the common judgment of the Lahore High Court, in Criminal Appeal No,162-J of 2005, Criminal Revision No,494 of 2005 and Murder Reference No,454 of 2005, whereby it has maintained the conviction of the petitioner awarded by the trial Court, while dismissing the appeal it has also dismissed the criminal . Revision filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation.
2. Facts as has been incorporated in the impugned judgment are that on 2-1-2005 at about 11-00 a.m. Said Amir, complainant was trimming trees in his land while his father Fateh Khan (deceased) and brother Muhammad Ameer (deceased) were grazing their goats there. In the meanwhile, Mumraiz (petitioner) armed with pistol .30 bore came there and raised lalkara that lie would teach a lesson to all of them for his insult and would not spare any one alive. Mumraiz petitioner fired successive shots with his pistol which hit on head, right shoulder, upper part of the right and left thigh of Fateh Khan deceased, who fell down and the petitioner went away. The complainant and his brother Muhammad Ameer deceased were shifting their father in injured condition to their house and on the way, Mumraiz petitioner again came there and fired successive straight shots which hit Muhammad Ameer deceased on his left side of back and right shoulder who fell down and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Mumraiz petitioner decamped from the scene of occurrence by waiving his pistol. The complainant, Mehr Khan and Muhammad Iqbal witnessed the occurrence. They shifted the deceased Fateh Khan in injured condition to District Headquarters Hospital, Mianwali. Where he, on the way, succumbed to the injuries.
3. Motive for the occurrence was stated to be a Banna of land between the parties and one day prior to the occurrence Fateh Khan and Muhammad Ameer (deceased persons) had insulted the Mumraiz, due to which he had committed the murders.
4. After registration of the F.I.R, Muhammad Tahir S.H.O (P.W.12) visited the crime scene, prepared injury statements and inquest reports and sent the dead bodies for autopsy. Dr. Maqbool Mubarik (P.W.4) conducted post-mortem of the deceased. The petitioner was arrested on 27-1-2005, who led to the recovery of pistol .30 bore along with a magazine containing three bullets from his house.
The accused was sent up for trial. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses whereafter it closed its side. The petitioner was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to death on two counts for committing qatl-e-amd of Fateh Khan and Muhammad Ameer. He was also directed to pay Rs,2,00,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default whereof to under go six months' S.I each. The petitioner preferred criminal appeal against his conviction and sentence before the learned High Court, whereas the complainant filed criminal revision for enhancement of amount of compensation. The trial Court also made a murder reference for confirmation of death sentence of the petitioner or otherwise. The learned High Court, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the criminal appeal of the petitioner against his conviction and sentence as also the criminal revision filed by the complainant and answered the murder reference in affirmative.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned High Court as well as the trial Court have erred in law in awarding death penalty to the petitioner. He has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the petitioner through independent witnesses.
According to him, eye-witnesses, whose evidence was believed by the trial Court, were closely related and were interested witnesses and their evidence ought to have been discarded by the two Courts. His next contention was that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive, which has been attributed to the petitioner. He has next contended that there were material contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the trial Court as well as the learned High Court ought to have disbelieved such material. The counsel for the petitioner has not urged any other ground before this Court.
6. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General in reply has supported the judgment impugned in these proceedings. He contended that the prosecution has proved the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, and have perused the record. It was a day light incident, which was witnessed by Syed Amir son of Fateh Khan, complainant, Sher Muhammad son of Muhammad Khan besides Mehr Khan and Muhammad Iqbal. The incident took place at 11-00 a.m. On 2-1-2005 and F.I.R. Was lodged within two hours. Muhammad Ameer deceased died at the spot whereas deceased Fateh Khan died on the way to hospital. The petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R. And names of the eye-witnesses were mentioned in the F.I.R. Crime weapon was recovered by the police on the pointation of the petitioner, who was arrested on 27-1-2005.
8. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses inclusive of Dr. Maqbool Mukbarak, who conducted post-mortem, S.H.O. Muhammad Tahir, who conducted investigation of the case, Said Amir complainant and Muhammad Iqbal who had witnessed the occurrence. The contention of the learned counsel that both the eye-witnesses were closely related to the deceased is no ground to discard their testimony. This Court in the case of Talib Hussain . The State (2009 SCM R 825) has held that mere close relationship of witness is not sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of such witness unless it is shown that his evidence is not confidence inspiring. There are chain of authorities of this Court on the aforesaid proposition. The contention that ocular evidence was dependent upon the interested witnesses is fully answered by the aforesaid judgment. We have gone through the testimony of witnesses namely Said Amir, Mehr Khan and Muhammad Iqbal and are of the considered view that their testimony is confidence inspiring and the trial Court and the learned High Court have rightly believed them.
9. The next contention of the learned counsel . Is that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive, There are number of judgments of this Court on this proposition wherein it has been held that inadequacy or weakness or failure to prove motive by the prosecution are immaterial to award conviction. The insufficiency or motive being shrouded in mystery could not be considered as circumstances non-awarding normal penalty of death to a murderer or to reduce the sentence of death to lesser punishment. We are fortified by the judgments of this court in the cases reported as Zulfiqar Ali v. The State (2008 SCM R 796),. Syed Hamid Mukhtar Shah v. Muhammad Azam (2005 SCM R 427), Hameed Khan alias Hamedi v. Ashraf Shah (2002 SCM R 1155), Nasir Ahmed v. The State (2009 SCM R 523).
10.
10. The petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Has stated that there was. Dispute between the parties over landed property w owing to which he was falsely implicated in the criminal proceedings. He, however, has admitted that there was a quarrel between the deceased Fateh Khan and deceased Muhammad Ameer with Muhammad Aslam, the brother of the petitioner on a day before the occurrence. We on perusal of record find that the ocular evidence corroborates the medical evidence and the testimony of two eye-witnesses fully supports the B prosecution version in which these witnesses have categorically attributed the murder of both the deceased to the petitioner. The presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence was natural and was fully explained. We do not find any legal _infirmity either in the impugned judgment of the High Court or in the judgment of the trial Court nor there is any misreading or non- reading. Of material piece of evidence by both the courts which could warrant interference by this court.
11. For the foregoing, we do not find any merit in this petition and while refusing leave to appeal petition is dismissed.