' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The appellant has assailed the vires of judgment dated 1-10-2007 passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Dera Ghazi Khan, in case F.I.R. No.364 of 2006 dated 15-12-2006 Police Station City Rajanpur, District Rajanpur, under sections 302/109, P.P.C. And section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Case .No.06/ATC/2007) whereby he was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. Read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to death. The learned trial court has also submitted C.S.R. No.03 of 2007 under section 374, Cr.P.C, seeking confirmation or otherwise of the capital punishment awarded to the appellant. Both these matters are inter-linked and inter-connected so are being decided through this single judgment.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as set forth in the F.I.R. (Ex.PD/1) recorded on the statement (Ex. PD) of Jalalud-Din son of Naurang Khan, Caste Garani, aged 54/55 years, an employee of B.C.
Police, resident of Umar Kot, is that on 15-12-2006, he along with his son Abdul Karim, Allah Rakha and Shah Gul came to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, in connection with the date of hearing of case F.I.R. No.66 of 2006 Police Station Umar Kot under sections 302/34, P.P.C. At about 11-00 a.m. The case was called for hearing and his son entered the court room whereas, he, Shah Gul and Allah Rakha remained standing adjacent to the gate of the court room in the verandah.
Allah Ditta son of Rasool Bakhsh appellant and Abdul Latif son of Hazoor Bakhsh (since P.O.), both Garani by caste and residents of Mud Muhammad Shah also entered the court room although the court had not summoned Allah Ditta. Allah Ditta pulled out the Pistol .12 bore, which he had concealed and made fire, which hit Abdul Karim on the right side of his back. Abdul Karim fell down.
Abdul Latif co-accused of the appellant fled away from the Southern gate of the court. The complainant, Allah Rakha and Shah Gul gave support to Abdul Karim but he had died. The appellant was arrested along with the Pistol .12 bore by the Police employees and other persons present in the court. It was further alleged that the accused persons had got registered the case against Abdul Karim for murder of appellant's brother Piran Ditta but the deceased was found innocent during investigation and due to this grudge, the appellant and his co-accused caused Qatl-eamd of the deceased.
3. After investigation, the appellant was sent up to face the trial. He was charged under sections 302(b), P.P.C. Read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. He pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
4. The prosecution produced 9 witnesses in support of its allegations in addition to the documentary evidence.. The medical evidence was adduced through Dr. Shama Noor Medical Officer, D.11Qs Hospital, Rajanpur (P.W.1) who had conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Abdul Karim deceased on 15-12-2006 at about 1-00 p.m. He found following injuries on his person:--
(1) There were seven lacerated fire arm wounds of about 1.5 x 1.5 cm each in circle situated on the back and lower side of left side of the chest. Margins are inverted going deep. Blackening was present.
' He proved the postmortem report (Exh. PA) along with pictorial diagrams (Exh.PA/1). He further added that the inquest report (Exh.PB) bears his signatures. He opined that he cause of death was destruction of vital organs, the injuries mentioned above were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and that the probable time between death and postmortem was 1 to 3 hours.
5. Jalal Din complainant appeared as P.W.1 and almost reiterated the contents of his statement.
(Exh.PD). Allah Rakha (P.W.8) the other eye-witness of the occurrence stated that on 15-12-2006, he, Abdul Karim and Jalal Din came to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur in connection with 'Pestles in which Tariq and Abdul Karim were the accused persons. The case was called for hearing at 11-00 '0 Clock. Abdul Karim entered into the court of Sessions Judge, Rajanpur. Allah Ditta and Abdul Latif followed him. The witness, Jalal Din complainant and Shah Gul (since given up) were standing outside the court room near the door in the verandah. Within their sight Allah Ditta appellant made fire with .12 bore Pistol, which hit on back of Abdul Karim. Abdul Latif decamped from the Southern gate. Allah Ditta was apprehended by the Police officials present in the court.
They attended Abdul Karim, who had expired by that time He further stated that the I.O. Secured the Pistol P.1 and crime empty P.2 through memo of recovery (Ex.PF) attested by him and Shah Gul (since given up).
6. The investigation, of this case was conducted by Farooq Ahmad, S.-I. (P.W.9), who stated that on 15-12-2006 he was posted as S.I. In Police Station City, Rajanpur. He was present in Katchery Chowk.
At 11.05 '0 clock, he received the news about the occurrence. He rushed to the court. The complainant got recorded his statement (Exh. PD) and put his signatures in token of its correctness after hearing the same. He sent the complaint to the Police Station for registration of the case. He took the dead body into possession and secured the blood-stained earth through memo of recovery (Exh.PG). He prepared the inquest report (Exh.PB). The accused was arrested along with Pistol. He unloaded the Pistol and the crime empty was ejected He secured the Pistol and crime empty through memo of recovery (Exh.PF) and prepared the sealed parcels of the same. He has also proved the site plan without scale (Exh.PH), memo of recovery (Exh.PC) regarding securing of last worn clothes of the deceased and red notes on the site plan with scale (Exh. PE).
7. P.W.5 has proved F.I.R. (Exh.PD/1). P.W.6 has proved the site plan with scale in triplicate (Exh. PE, Exh. PE/1 and Exh.PE/2). P.W.2 kept the parcels containing Pistol .12 bore, blood-stained earth and crime empty in the Malkhana from 15-12-2006 to 25-12-2006 and P.W. Delivered the same in concerned quarters on 26-12-2006. The prosecution has also produced the report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PK) and report of the FSL (Exh. PL).
8. The accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegation that he had made firing on Abdul Karim, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot but in the later part of the statement, he categorically stated that he used the Pistol P.1 in consequence of grave and sudden provocation. He added that he entered the court room on the call of the court to attend the case and when he was present inside the court room, Abdul Karim deceased hurled abuses and called his sister and mother names so due to sudden and grave provocation, he made fire with Pistol, which he was keeping in his 'Dub' (fold) for safety and protection. He opted neither to lead- defence evidence nor to appear as witnesses on oath under section 340(2), Cr .P. C .
9. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court proceeded on to convicts and sentence the appellant as above.
10. We have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Khalid Ibn-e-Aziz, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant (at Sate expenses) and Mr. M. Amjad Rafiq, D.P.-G., for the State and have also minutely perused the record with their able assistance.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that P.Ws. Jalal Din and Allah Rakha are father and paternal uncle in relation of the deceased, who have previous enmity with the appellant and his family so they are interested and inimical witnesses, who cannot be safely relied upon; that Jalal Din (P.W.7) is an employee of B.C. Police and was posted at Quetta so his presence at the time and place of occurrence was not natural and similarly Allah Rakha P.W. Was not required to be present in the court so it was not in their knowledge as what had actually happened at and before the time of occurrence; that the appellant Allah Ditta was witness of the murder of his brother Piran Ditta and in the area of Umar Kot, where the parties reside, taking of revenge is duty of the heirs of the deceased under the old custom and that the appellant was only 20 years old and being a raw hand young boy was swa yed due to the abuses hurled by the deceased in the court room and as such lost control over himself so the penalty of death awarded to him is excessive and there are strong mitigating circumstances warranting a lenient view notwithstanding the place of occurrence. In support the contentions raised, reliance is placed on the case-law reported as Ajun Shah v. The State (PLD 1967 SC 185), Zulficiar alias Bhutto v. The State (1995 SCM R 1668), Shera and others v. The State (1976 PCr.LJ 1028 (Lahore) and Shah Nawaz alias Shani v. The State (2005 YLR 1011) (Lahore).
12. Controverting these arguments, the learned DPG has contended that the appellant committed murder of a young man in the court room of learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, and was apprehended at the spot along with the weapon of offence so no mitigating circumstance is available and that both P.Ws. Have given reasonable explanation for their presence at the place of occurrence and there is no reason to disbelieve them. In support of the contentions raised, reliance is placed on Nasir Shah v. The State (2006 SCM R 1796).
13. The occurrence took place at about 11-00 a.m. And the statement of the complainant was recorded at 11-45 a.m., which was reduced into F.I.R. At 11-55 a.m. So the contention that the complainant-was in Quetta in connection with his service stands negated. The complainant has stated that he was on leave and accompanied his son to pursue the murder case. Similarly Allah Rakha has stated that he come along with the complainant, the deceased and Shah Gul in connection with the date of hearing of the case. It is a matter of common knowledge that in our rural areas, the close relatives of the accused or the complainant do accompany them to the courts premises on the dates of hearing. The appellant was apprehended from the court room. The site plan (Exh.PE) shows that the murder was committed in the court, room and blood-stained earth was also secured from there. No doubt P.Ws. Are related to the deceased but their evidence cannot be discarded on this ground. Even otherwise after denying the prosecution version in his reply to question No.2 of his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. The appellant in the later part of his statement admitted that the fire was made by him. His contention that this was the result of grave and sudden provocation as the deceased had hurled abuses and called his sister and mother names is not substantiated by any tangible proof. Even otherwise it is not believable that an accused can hurl abuses in the court room of the Sessions Judge where he has appeared to face the trial of a murder case. P.Ws.7 and 8 have proved that the appellant was the person, who had made the fire causing death of the deceased and this fact is not even denied by him.
14. P.Ws. 8 and 9 have proved that the appellant was apprehended at the spot and the Pistol P.1 along with crime empty P.2 was recovered from his possession and was secured through memo of recovery (Exh.PF). The report of the FSL (Exh.PL) proves that the crime empty was fired from the Pistol recovered from the possession of the appellant at the spot. This lends full corroboration to the prosecution version. The earth secured from the court room was found to be stained with blood. The appellant had also admitted that the occurrence had taken place in the court room of learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur.
15. It is proved on the record beyond any shadow of doubt that Allah Ditta appellant had committed Qatl-e-amd of Abdul Karim son of the complainant. The contention of the appellant that it was result of sudden and grave provocation is false on face of it as he had come to the court while concealing a Pistol in his fold (Dub) and used it in the court room. It was premeditated, pre-planned and cool-blooded murder. The mere fact that the appellant was 20 years old is not a mitigating circumstance in view of the fact that he caused Qatl-e-amd of a young man aged about 27 years after having made preparation and under a plan in the court room of the Sessions Judge. This was a grave instance of devil dareness. It was a gruesome and callous act. The desperate criminals, who cause Qatl-e-amd in the court rooms or court premises cannot claim any concession/lenient attitude in the name of youth, raw-handedness or murder of relative in the past. The law of Jungle cannot be allowed to prevail in the society. No civilized society can accept such acts on the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The case-law cited at the bar is not applicable on the peculiar facts of this case. No doubt sentence of life imprisonment is also one of the punishments prescribed under section 302(b), P.P.C. But mitigating circumstance is a relative term and has to be evaluated keeping in view the facts and overall crime picture of each case. In this case, no doubt the appellant was 20 years old and it is not denied by the prosecution that his brother was murdered and that the deceased was one of the accused persons of said case but the manner .In which appellant has murdered him leaves no ground to award him lesser punishment. The learned trial court rightly convicted him under section 302(b), P.P.C. Read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and awarded him the sentence he deserves. No ground for interference in the impugned D judgment of the learned trial court is made out. The conviction recorded and the sentence awarded to the appellant are upheld. The appeal in hand is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed. The death penalty awarded to the appellant is confirmed. Consequently C .S . R. No . 03 of 2007 is answered in the affirmative.