' SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1858 of 2006 filed by Hafiz Abdul Rehman and Abdul Sattar convicts/appellants, who were convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment dated 28-11-2006 as under:-- Under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C.
Death on two counts and to pay compensation of Rs,.50,000 each payable to the legal heirs of the deceased in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Murder Reference No,753 of 2006 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of the appellants Hafiz Abdul Rehman and Abdul Sattar through this judgment.
2. Succinctly, facts as mentioned in the complaint Exh.PA of complainant Muhammad Ilyas, are that on 6-2-1997 at about 3-00 p.m. Father of the complainant along with his friends Nazar Hussain and Muhammad Anwar were standing in the shop adjoining to their house namely Ghausia Electric and the complainant along with Ijaz-ul-Haq, Muhammad Irshad and Haji Muhammad Rasheed were standing in front of the main gate of their house when Muhammad Asghar Butt alias Kala Butt armed with Kalashnikov,. Hafiz Abdul Rehman armed with rifle .222-bore and Abdul Sattar armed with sten-gun .30-bore came on a Honda motorcycle 125 without number plate from Data Nagar Bazar. Accused Abdul Rehman raised lalkara to teach a lesson to Bhola and his sons for the murder of their mother. Asghar alias Kala Butt fired with his Kalashnikov hitting at the right side of chest and left arm of father of the complainant. Abdul Rehman fired with his rifle .222-bore hitting on the left thigh and right flank of the father of the complainant and one bullet hit on the waist of Nazar Hussain Butt. Abdul Sattar fired with his .30-bore sten-gun which hit on the right arm of the father of the complainant and on the waist of Muhammad Anwar. They fell down after sustaining fire-arm injuries. Accused Asghar alias Kala Butt, Abdul Rehman and Abdul Sattar made indiscriminate firing with their respective weapons, which hit on the different parts of the bodies of the father of the complainant and his friends Nazar Hussain and Muhammad Anwar. All the accused fled away from the spot while raising lalkaras. The complainant as well as the P. Ws. Saved their lives by hiding into the house of complainant. The complainant and his other companions escorted the injured to Mayo Hospital where Haji Muhammad Amin and Nazar Hussain Butt succumbed to the injuries on way to hospital whereas injured Muhammad Anwar was admitted in the hospital.
' Motive behind the occurrence as stated in the F.I.R. Is that 10/11 months prior to the occurrence, accused Abdul Rahman and Abdul Sattar got registered a false criminal case for the murder of their mother in which case the complainant and his father were acquitted. The complainant further alleged that Muhammad Asghar alias Kula Butt, who was an absconder from jail, was the supporter of Abdul Rehman and Abdul Sattar, who in consultation with Aulad-e-Mujtaba Shah and Abdul Wahid, murdered Haji Muhammad Amin, Nazar Hussain Butt and caused injuries to Muhammad Anwar.
3. After the submission of challan, accused Hafiz Abdul Rahman, Abdul Sattar, Abdul Wahid were charged under sections 302/324/ 109/34, P.P.C. To which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge, examined as many as 15 witnesses.
4. Muhammad Ilyas P.W.1 and Haji Ejaz-ul-Haq P.W.2 are the eye-witnesses of this occurrence.
Muhammad Wasim P.W.3 is the witness of abetment. Rashid Ahmad No,1833/C P.W.4, Muhammad Arshad ASI P.W.5, Iftikhar Ahmad No,12981/C P.W.6, Muhammad Arif SI P.W.7, Hameed-ud-Din Chishti draftsman PW-8, Tehseen Zia P.W.11, are the formal witnesses. Muhammad Nasrullah No,8207/HC P.W.14 and Muhammad Nawaz No,5356/HC P.W.15 are the witnesses of the recovery of pistol .30- bore recovered on the pointation of Abdul Sattar alias Kaka accused. Arshad Mehmood Inspector/SHO P.W.12 and Khadim Hussain, Inspector P. W.13 conducted the investigation of this case.
5. Dr.- Amir Bashir (P.W.9) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Nazar Hussain and he observed following injuries:- INJURIES ' No,1. Ther was an 1.8 x 1 cm sized elliptical lacerated wound with inverted margins and collar of abrasion around were sited 2 cm above clevical, 3 cm medial to the top of right shoulder and 10 cm from sternal angle.
' No,1-A. There was a lacerated wound with everted margins measuring 4 x 2 cm sited 10 cm below top of right shoulder and 29 cm above right elbow joint.
2. There was a lacerated wound with inverted margins measuring 1 x .5 cm with collar of abrasion around sited on left arm 10 cm below tip of left shoulder and 23 cm above left elbow.
3. There was a lacerated wound with inverted margins measuring 3 x 1 cm with collar of abrasion around sited on back 3 cm to the left of posterior mid-line and 23 cm below nip of neck.
3-A. There was 1.5 x 1 cm sized lacerated transversly placed wound with everted margins sited on left arm 10 cm below a tip of left shoulder and 26 cm above left elbow. OPINION ' All the injuries stated were ante-mortem and caused by fire arms. The cause of death was damage to the viscera of chest and their blood vessels under injuries Nos.2 and 3 leading to profused bleeding and shock. That was sufficient to. Cause death in an ordinary course of nature.
' The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was within a few minutes and between death and autopsy about 18-24 hours.
6. Dr. Sabahat Javed Butt (P.W.10) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Haji Muhammad Amin and he observed following injuries:-- INJURIES ' No,1-A. A circular lacerated wound measuring 1 x 1 cm with inverted margin present on left side of chest over lateral wall, 5 cm below axilla over posterior axillary line, 16 cm towards left and above left nipple.
' No,1-B. An oval shape lacerated gapping wound with everted margin measuring 4 x 2.5 cm present over right side of front of chest, 7.5 cm towards right of anterior midline and 8 cm above right nipple at 12 o'clock position.
No,2-A. Lacerated wound with inverted margins measuring 1 x 0.8 cm present over lateral wall of left side of chest, 11 cm below left axilla; 13 cm towards left of left nipple in posterior axillary line and 26 cm above left top of iliac crest. No,2-B. Lacerated wound with everted margin measuring 2 x 1.5 cm present over right shoulder, 4 cm below right top of shoulder and 20 cm above right elbow over lateral region. No.3 A lacerated wound measuring 1 x .1.5 cm present over lateral wall of left side of lower most part of abdomen at the level of just above iliac crest, 28 cm towards left of anterior midline, in the plane of posterior axillary line. The projectile after damaging the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles, peritoneum, loop of small and large intestine right side of diaphragm, liver, lower lobe of right lung, fracture of 10th rib and was lodged in muscles outer to the rib cage from which, it was recovered, sealed in a bottle and handed over to the area police. No.4 A circular lacerated wound measuring 1 x 1 cm with inverted margins, 17 cm towards left of anterior mid-line over left side of front of lower most part of abdomen. The wound was present in the plane of anterior axillary line. No,4-B Oval shape. Lacerated wound with everted margin measuring 2 x 1 cm present over right side of front of abdomen towards right of anterior midline. 18 cm below right nipple at 6 o'clock, 17 cm towards right of naves. On exploration, the projectile after entering the body through injury No,4-A, damaged the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles, loops of intestines and exit through injury No,4 -B.
No,5-A. Linear shape lacerated wound with inverted margin measuring 2.5 'x 1 cm present over posterior surface of right fore-arm, 16 cm below right elbow and 7 cm above right wrist joint. No,5-B.
Lacerated wound with everted margins measuring 1.8 x 1.2 cm was present over posterior surface of right fore-arm, 11 cm below right elbow and 12 cm above right wrist and 2.5 cm above injury No,5-A.
On exploration, one metallic bullet was lodged in the skin just beneath and superficial to injury No,5-B from where, it was recovered and sealed in a bottle along with other bullet and handed over to area police. On exploration, the projectile entered the fore-arm under injury No,5-A and after damaging the right radius, which penetrated out of skin in an area of 4 x 3.5 cm over posterior, part of right fore-arm, was lodged in skin under injury No,5-B from where, it was recovered. No,6-A.
Inverted gapping lacerated wound measuring 6 x 2.5 cm present over anterior surface of left fore- arm, 16 cm below left elbow and 3 cm above left wrist. No,6-B. Gapping lacerated wound with everted margin measuring 9.4 x 4 cm was present over posterior part of left fore-arm, 7 cm below left elbow and 10 cm above left wrist. On exploration, the left radius was fractures along with left ulna. OPINION ' In the opinion of medical expert, all the injuries stated above were ante-mortem in nature and caused by fire-arm weapon. The cause of death in this case was gross damage to the vital organ of chest and liver (including heart, lungs, and blood vessels). Under injuries Nos.1, 2 and 3, leading to haemorrhage; shock and death. These injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually as, well as collectively.
' The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was within instantaneous and between death and post mortem was 18 to 24 hours.
7. The prosecution after tendering in evidence the report of Chemical Examiner Exh.PS and Exh.PT, report of Serologist Exh.PV and Exh.PX, closed its evidence.
8. After closing of the prosecution evidence all the accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution was put to them, which they termed as incorrect, to question as to why this case was registered and why the P. Ws. Have deposed against them, appellants Abdul Rehman and Abdul Sattar deposed as under:- "In fact Muhammad Amin alias Bhola had enmity with Asghar alias Kaala Butt for the last 25 years ago, so many fightings and exchange of firing had taken place between both the parties and there were personal vendetta between the parties and so many times they had injured each other with fire arm weapons and had lodged so many criminal cases against one another. About 26 criminal cases including murder and attempt to murder, pending against Asghar Ali alias Kaala Butt in which Muhammad Amin_ alias Bhola was either complainant or witness, similarly round about 30 criminal cases including murder and attempt to murder were pending against Muhammad Amin alias Bhola in which Asghar Ali Kala Butt was either complainant or witness against the said Muhammad Amin alias Bhola. Unfortunately the complainant disposed us from the mother's house a few days back when he was murdered by Asghar Ali alias Kala Butt but I and my brothers were also roped in the instant case just to prevent us from the pervi of my mother's murder case. Muhammad Amin alias Bhola has roped Asghar All alias Kala Butt, his brother and his cousin in murder cases, in this way Asghar Ali alias Kala Butt had severe grudge against Muhammad Amin deceased. Asghar All alias Kala Butt was arrested in the criminal case lodged by Muhammad Amin alias Bholla (deceased in this case) and then Muhammad Asghar alias Kala Butt ran away from the custody of police while he came in the trial Court to face that case. In early days of his abscondance he murdered one girl and immediate after that occurrence he committed double murder of Muhammad Amin alias Bhola Chore and one Nazar Butt. Insofar as I and my brother's nomination in the F.I.R. Concerned, a few months prior to this occurrence Muhammad Amin alias Bhola etc., illegally dispossessed us from our house and we had filed suit for possession us from our house and we had filed suit for possession against the deceased Muhammad Amin alias Bhola, in the court of Misbah Khan Civil Judge, Lahore and obtained possession of my mother's house but after few days Muhammad Amin etc. Again attacked us in our house to dispossess us, illegally and forcibly. At that time we raised very much hue and cry and created hurdle to there aim. Muhammad Amin alias Bhola and his companions fired on us, as result of which my mother died on the spot and my brother-in-law was murdered after few months. We lodged F.I.R. Against Muhammad Amin, his sons and his co-accused under section 302/324, P.P.C. The case of my mother was pending in the Court of law. Muhammad Amin alias Bhola etc. The accused of my mother's case had been trying to resolve the matter by one way or the other, meanwhile the instant case took place and we had been roped in the murders of Muhammad Amin alias Bhola and one Nazar Butt. They had roped all of us, three brothers, just to prevent us from the Pervi of the murder case of my mother and civil litigation regarding the possession of our house. P. Ws. Have deposed against us as they are closely related to deceased and they have falsely depOsed at the behest of complainant. The complainant produced a person in witness box who was not a real person named in the calendar of witness. I and my brothers felt suspect and raised objection before the predecessor of this Court, that the person producing before the court is not real person. The court held an enquiry about that witness in which he was found guilty of impersonation, the predecessor of this Hon'ble Court passed an order to lodge F.I.R. Against that person namely Muhammad Waseem. In this way F.I.R. Was lodged against the said Waseem at Police Station Islampura, Lahore.
' Sir, the complainant had involved us in the instant case just to maintain their illegal possession on my mother's house and to prevent us from the Pervi of the murder case of my beloved mother.
9. Learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, acquitted accused Abdul Wahid by extending the benefit of doubt while accused/appellants Abdul Rehman and Abdul Sattar was convicted and sentenced to death on two counts and to pay compensation of Rs,.50,000 each to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased on two counts in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the FIR,. Was lodged after due deliberation and consultation and not at the time shown in the documents; that both the eye witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence as Haji Ejaz-ul-Haq P.W.2 is the resident of Kahna; that the witnesses are inimical, interested and chance witnesses; that the witnesses, if were present at the time of occurrence, could be the most favorite of the accused to shoot as in the motive part of F.I.R., it has been mentioned that the mother of accused Hafiz Abdul Rehman and Abdul Sattar was murdered in which case they had been acquitted; that the appellants are nominated accused and according to the site plan prepared by the draftsman, the P.Ws. Were available at an open place at a distance of 18 feet from the accused; that there is no mention of empties as well as the witnesses in the site plan; that there is an inordinate delay in conducting the post mortem examination of the dead bodies of both the deceased; that the star witnesses of this case namely Muhammad Anwar, injured was not produced and was given up being won over; that allegedly the occurrence took place in a busy Bazar but no independent witness was associated during investigation; that the appellants had no enmity whatsoever; that the recovery of pistol from appellant Abdul Sattar is inconsequential; that even otherwise it is alleged in the F.I.R. That Abdul Sattar was armed with stain gun .30-bore but only a pistol was allegedly recovered at his instance; that report of Forensic Science Laboratory has been withheld by the prosecution; that the pallets recovered from the dead bodies were not sent to Forensic Science laboratory for expert opinion; that the Investigating Officer remained failed to arrive at the conclusion regarding the guilt or otherwise of the appellants; that Abdul Wahid co-accused of the appellants has been acquitted in this case while disbelieving important part of the prosecution evidence and the ocular account against the appellants cannot be relied upon without some independent corroboration, which is very much lacking in this case; that in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer there is no mention of any witness; that co-accused Muhammad Asghar Kala remained proclaimed offender and then was murdered in police encounter, has no relationship of any sort with the appellants; that the appellants are behind, the bars for last more than 16 years and if the Court is not convinced with the arguments of acquittal, it is not a case of capital sentence, for the following reasons that there is no report of Forensic Science Laboratory on the record, Muhammad Anwar, injured has not been produced in the Court, there is no recovery from appellant Hafiz Abdul Rehman and that both the appellants were arrested in this case on 20-4-1997 and 29-11-1997 respectively. Relies upon "1998 SCMR 279", "2009 SCM R 502" and "1998 SCM R 25".
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that it is a case of promptly lodged F.I.R. With the specific role of appellants causing injury to both the deceased; that both the eye witnesses are the natural witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence is quite natural; that Muhammad Ilyas P.W.1 is the son of Haji Muhammad Amin whereas P.W.12 is his nephew; that the ocular account is consistent with the medical evidence; that the recovery is only a supportive evidence; that no question was asked from P.W.2 regarding his presence at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence; that it is a case of double murder and the injuries are attributed to both the appellants, therefore, it is not a case of taking lenient view in sentence.
Learned DPG has added that the case against the appellants has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt; that the motive is established and they do not deserve any leniency in this case.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned DPG for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record.
13. The prosecution has mainly relied on the statements of Muhammad Ilyas complainant (P.W.1) and Haji Ejaz-ul-Haq (P.W.2). Muhammad Ilyas complainant P.W.1 has deposed that on 6-2-1997 at about 3-00 p.m. When he along with Haji Ejaz, Haji Irshad and Haji Rasheed were standing in front of the door of their Haveli and his father Haji Muhammad Amin along with Nazar Butt and Muhammad Anwar were sitting in the shop namely Ghausia Corporation Asghar Ali alias Kala Butt armed with Kalashnikov, Abdul Rehman armed with .222-rifle and Abdul Sattar alias Kaka armed with .30-bore sten-gun came on a motorcycle and Abdul Rehman raised a Lalkara that Haji Bhola be taught a lesson for the murder of his mother. Asghar alias Kala Butt fired with his kalashnikov which hit on the right side of chest and left arm of his father whereas the fire of Abdul Rehman hit on the left buttock and right flank of his father as well as on the back of Nazar Butt. Abdul Sattar alias Kaka fired with his rifle which hit on the right arm of his father and on the back of Anwar.
Motive behind the occurrence was that the mother of Abdul Rehman was murdered and the case of her murder was registered against them in which they were acquitted and due to the aforesaid motive, the occurrence of this case has been committed in connivance of Aulad-e-Mujtaba and Abdul Wahid accused. His father and the injured were taken to Mayo Hospital in a vehicle and his deposition Exh.PA was recorded in Mayo Hospital.
14. Haji Ejaz-ul-Haq (P.W.2), who is Bhanja of Haji Muhammad Amin deceased has also made the similar statement and has corroborated P.W.1 on all main aspects of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the testimony of both the aforesaid P.Ws. Being close relative of Haji Muhammad Amin alias Bhola deceased and inimical towards the appellants. But it is now well- settled law that merely on the basis of inter se relationship of the witnesses with the deceased, their testimony cannot be discarded. The occurrence of this case has taken place in the shop namely Ghausia Corporation which was at a distance of about 18 feet from the door of the Haveli of the complainant and deceased Haji Muhammad Amin. The presence of P.Ws. At the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence is natural one. It was alleged during the arguments by the learned defence counsel that Ejaz-ul-Haq P.W.2 was residing at Kahna and was not the resident of Badami Bagh but the said P.W. To whom the suggestion was put, had categorically denied the same and he had also explained that his younger brother Ihsan-ul-Haq was the sale agent at his shop at Kahna. Both the P.Ws. Have given plausible explanation of their attraction to the place of occurrence and witnessing the incident. Both the P.Ws. Were -subjected to lengthy cross- examination who stood firm to the ordeal of the cross-examination. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Iqbal alias Bhala and 2 others v. The State (1994 SCM R 1)" as under:- "Friendship or relationship with the deceased will not be sufficient to discredit a witness particularly when there is no motive to falsely involve the accused."
"Muhammad Amin v. The State (2000 SCM R 1784 (Supreme Court of Pakistan)".
"Mere friendship or relationship with the deceased does not make a witness an interested one and testimony of such a witnesses, who otherwise seems to be truthful witness, cannot be rejected on the such ground."
"Khadim Hussain v. The State (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 669)".
"Mere relationship of a witness with the deceased is not sufficient to discard his statement, if he stands firm to the test of cross-examination and is corroborated by sufficient material."
"Khizar Hayat v. The State (2011 SCM R 429)
"The statement' of witness on account of being interested witness can only be discarded, if it is proved that an interested witness has ulterior motive on account of enmity or any other consideration. Succinctly, this preposition has been considered in a number of cases and this Court has declined to give weight to it in the absence of any reason, leading to show that for some ulterior motive or on account of enmity the statement has been falsely given. There is no rule of law that statement of interested witness cannot be taken into consideration without any corroboration and even uncorroborated version can be relied upon if supported by the surrounding circumstances."
15. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the other witness of this case namely Muhammad Anwar was not produced and was given up being won over and that the occurrence of this case had taken place in the Bazar but no independent witness was associated by the police during investigation. We have gone through the record carefully which shows that Muhammad Anwar P.W. Was not given up by the prosecution. In fact he had died during the pendency of trial as is apparent from the order dated 16-3-2005.
16. There is growing tendency as has been observed in several judgments of the superior Courts, that public neither volunteers to become witness nor the ' eye-witnesses come forward to help the investigation. Such reluctance .On the part of the general public may be due to various reasons including the fear from persons of impeachable character who are dangerous, desperate and revengeful. The other reasons are that generally the moral values have declined and also due to the faulty attitude of the police against which complaints have been made and the delays which occur in investigation and the trial of the cases. These facts are so prominent that it is difficult to ignore them. Therefore, in these circumstances, the prosecution cannot be blamed and no adverse inference can be drawn due to non-association of independent C witness during investigation of this case.
17. We do not find any reason to doubt the testimony of Muhammad Ilyas P.W.1 and Haji Ejaz-ul-Haq P.W.2 qua the role of the appellants D which otherwise is fully supported by the medical evidence.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the F.I.R. Was lodged after due deliberation and not at the time shown in the documents and there is an inordinate delay in conducting the post mortem examination of the dead bodies of both the deceased. According to the F. I. R. , the occurrence of this case had taken place at 3-10 p.m. On 6-2-1997 and the matter was reported to the police at about 5-15 p.m. Police Station Badami Bagh, Lahore is situated at a distance of 1/2 k.m. From the place of occurrence. It has been mentioned in the F.I.R. Itself that after the occurrence, the injured were being taken to Mayo Hospital where Haji Muhammad Amin and Nazar Hussain died on their way to hospital whereas Muhammad Anwar injured was admitted in the hospital. The statement of the complainant was recorded by the SHO, who was present at Emergency Ward Mayo Hospital at 4-45 p.m. And after recording the statement he sent the complaint to Police Station for the registration of case where it was incorporated in the shape of F.I.R. At 5-15 p.m. The occurrence has been reported to the police within one and half hour of the occurrence which had naturally been spent in shifting the injured to hospital, therefore, it cannot be said that the F.I.R. Has been got registered after due deliberation and consideration with an inordinate delay. The F.I.R. Was lodged at 5-15 p.m. In the month of February E 1997 i,e, (evening) and in those days the post-mortem examinations were not conducted after the sunset and before the rising of sun, therefore, the post mortem examination of the dead bodies was conduced on the following day and the said delay cannot be termed as inordinate delay in conducting the post mortem examination of the dead bodies.
19. The learned counsel for the appellants has stressed that Abdul Wahid co-accused of the appellants has been acquitted in this case while disbelieving one part of the prosecution evidence and the ocular account against the appellants cannot be relied upon. It is pertinent to mention here that Abdul Wahid was attributed the role of mere abettor and his case is quite distinguishable from the case of the appellants. Muhammad Ilyas (P.W.1) has assigned role to Abdul Wahid accused merely of abettor in the F.I.R. Exh.PA and Muhammad Ilyas while appearing as P.W.1 has deposed that the occurrence has been committed with the connivance of Aulad-e-Mujtaba and Abdul Wahid accused. No other overt act was attributed to Abdul Wahid, the acquitted accused. It was alleged that. Abdul Wahid had conspired for the murder of this case on 15-1-1997 in Roshan Hotel. The National Identity Card of Muhammad Wasim (P.W.3), who was examined in this respect, was found forged and fictitious one, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the statement of Muhammad Wasim and acquitted the accused Abdul Wahid. But both the appellants while armed with fire-arms, had come at the shop of Ghausia Corporation and fired at Haji Muhammad Amin, Nazar Butt and Muhammad Anwar, as a result of which Haji. Muhammad Amin and Nazar butt were murdered and Anwar was seriously injured. Therefore, the case of the appellants and the acquitted accused Abdul Wahid is distinct one and quite distinguishable.
20. The motive behind the occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. Is that mother of Hafiz Abdul Rehman, the appellant was murdered and the case of her murder was registered against the complainant party and the complainant party was acquitted from the charge of her murder, therefore, the appellants along with other co-accused had committed this murder. It is established on record that the case regarding the murder of mother of Abdul Rehman and Abdul Sattar appellants was registered against the complainant of this case, his father Haji Muhammad Amin, deceased of this case and other, who were acquitted of the charge and the aforesaid grudge has resulted in the occurrence of this case, thus, we are G of the view that the motive stands proved sufficiently.
21. Abdul Rehman was allegedly armed with Kalashnikov at the time of occurrence but no recovery has been effected from him. Abdul Sattar was allegedly armed with .30-bore sten-gun but .30- bore pistol has been recovered on his pointation. The crime empties were also recovered from the place of occurrence but the prosecution has not produce& report of Forensic Science laboratory to prove that whether the recovered pistol .30-bore on the pointation of accused Abdul Sattar was wedded with the empties or not. But even if the recovery of 30-bore pistol is excluded from the consideration, there remains sufficient evidence in the form of ocular account fully supported by the medical evidence to prove the prosecution case beyond and shadow of doubt against both the appellants. Therefore, the conviction of both the appellants under section 302(b), P.P.C. By the learned trial Court is based upon well settled principle of the appreciation of evidence and is maintained.
22. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, we have observed that it is not a case of capital sentence as there are certain circumstances leading towards the lesser sentence, the recovery of pistol remained inconsequential. Both the appellants along with Muhammad Asghar Kala Butt had fired at the deceased and Asghar alias Kala Butt (since dead) had fired with his kalashnikov which had hit on the right I side of the chest and left arm of Haji Muhammad Amin and the major role of firing at both the deceased was attributed to him and it is not on the record that the firing of which of the appellants was fatal. Both the appellants are behind the bar since 1997 and are facing the agony of trial. It is well-recognized principle that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as extenuating circumstances while deciding the quantum of sentence. Reliance is placed upon "Mir Muhammad alias Miro v. The State" (2009 SCM R 1188).
23. Resultantly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants (Hafiz Abdul Rehman and Abdul Sattar), under section 302(b)134, P.P.C. Their sentence of death is altered to imprisonment for life on two counts with the benefit of section 382(b), P.P.C. However, the penalty of compensation and sentence in default thereof as awarded by the trial Court is maintained. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
' The criminal appeal is hereby dismissed with the aforementioned modification, the Death Sentence awarded to the appellants is NOT confirmed and Murder Reference No,753 of 2006 is answered in NEGATIVE. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.