Rauf Ahmed Sheikh, J.--The appellant has assailed the vices of judgment dated 12.12.2007 passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Multan, in case FIR No, 240/07 dated 12.07.2007 P.S. City Vehari, under Sections 302 PPC/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Special Trial No, 75-SCAT.II.MN/2007) whereby he was convicted under Section 302 (b) PPC and was awarded death penalty on two counts for causing Qatal-i-Amd of Malik Muhammad Ramzan and Tasawar Ali and was also ordered to pay a sum of Rs,400,000/- on each count to the legal heirs of both the deceased persons under Section 544- A Cr.P.C., which would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and in case of non-payment of the same he would undergo further S.I. for six months. He was also convicted under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and was awarded death sentence with fine of Rs,400,000/- on each count and in case of non-payment, he would undergo S.I. for six months. The learned trial Court has also submitted CSR No, 01 of 2008 under Section 374 Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation or otherwise of the death penalty awarded to the appellant. As both these matters are interconnected and inter-linked so are being decided through this single judgment.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as set-forth in the FIR (Ex.PL) recorded on the statement (Ex.PL/1) of Muhammad Kaleem son of Muhammad Shafi, caste Rajput, aged 37/38- years, businessm an by profession, resident of U-Block, Peoples Colony, Vehari, is that on 12.07.2007 at about 12.15 noon he alongwith Muhammad Qamar went to the office of District Wild Officer in the Zoo, Vehari, to furnish an information about the ailment of their mother to his brother Tasawar Ali as she was calling him. Malik Muhammad Ramzan, his brother Muhammad Akram and complainant's brother Tasawar Ali were sitting in the office of the Inspector at that time. In the meantime Khalid Rasheed, Game Watcher, entered the room and immediately on arrival' said to.
Muhammad Ramzan that he had stopped his salary at the instance of Tasawar Ali so he would teach a lesson to, both of them. Immediately, he pulled out a .30 bore Pistol from his belt and made straight fire to Malik Muhammad Ramzan, which hit him on the right side of his head, who fell down.
In the meanwhile Khalid Rasheed appellant said to Tasawar Ali that he should also be ready to die.
Tasawar Ali due to fear ran towards outside. The appellant followed him. The complainant and others also followed them. After covering some paces, Khalid Rasheed made a fire in the sight of the witnesses, which hit Tasawar Ali on the back side of his head, who lost his balance. The accused made second fire, which hit Tasawar Ali near his upper lip. Khalid Rasheed fled away on the Motorcycle by brandishing the weapon. Malik Muhammad Ramzan and Tasawar Ali succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. The appellant was arrested on 13.07.2007. After investigation he was sent up to face the trial. The learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Multan, charged him under Sections 7(a) of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 and 302 PPC for causing Qatal-i-Amd of Malik Muhammad Ramzan and Tasawar Ali. He pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
4. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses in support of its allegations against the appellant.
The medical evidence is furnished through Dr. Muhammad Aslam (PW-1). He stated that on 12.07.2007 at 2.25 p.m. he conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Tasawar Ali deceased and found following injuries on his person:-- 1.A. A lacerated wound of fire-arm injury 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x going deep on left side back of head, margins were inverted, there was no blackening and charring present.
1.B. A fire-arm lacerated wound of exit 2 cm x 2 cm on right cheek anter to right ear, margins were everted, fresh bleeding from the wound.
2. A fire-arm lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on outer most part of nasal septum, no blackening or charring were present.
He opined that the death was result of shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries -to the vital organs i,e, brain. The injuries were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time between the injury and death was instantaneous and between death and post-mortem was about two hours. He proved the post-mortem examination report (Ex.PB) and pictorial diagrams (Ex.PB/1).
He further stated that on the same day he conducted the postmortem of Muhammad Ramzan deceased and found following injuries on his person:-- 1,A A fire-arm lacerated wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm going deep on right side back of head 6 cm from right ear. There was no blackening and charring present, margins were inverted.
1.B A lacerated fire-arm wound of exit 2 cm x 2 cm on back left side of head. Fresh bleeding from the wound was present.
He opined that the death was result of shock and hemorrhage due to the injury to the vital organ i,e, brain. These injuries were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time between the injuries and death was instantaneous and between the death and post-mortem was about 2% hours. He proved the post-mortem examination report (Ex.PD) and pictorial diagrams (Ex.PD/1). He also proved his signatures on application (Ex.PD/2).
5. The ocular account is furnished through Kaleem Akhtar (PW-11) and Muhammad Akram (PW-13).
The complainant has almost reiterated the contents of the FIR and added that the statement (Ex.PL/1) bears his signatures in token of its correctness. Muhammad Akram (PW-13) has stated that on 12.07.2007, he was present in the office of his brother Malik Muhammad Ramzan, District Wild Officer in the Zoo, Vehari alongwith Muhammad .Ramzan and Tasawar Hussain, Game Watcher. At about 12.15 p.m., Rana Muhammad Kaleem brother of Tasawar Ali also came alongwith Rana Qamar PW, who had to inform Tasawar Ali about the ailment of his mother. In the meanwhile Khalid Rasheed appellant also came in the office and said to Malik Muhammad Ramzan that he had been withholding his salary at the instance of Tasawar Ali and that he would teach them a lesson for the said reason. He took out a Pistol and made fire upon Malik Muhammad Ramzan, which hit him on his head. Khalid Rasheed then said to Tasawar Ali that he should also get ready on which Tasawar Ali ran towards outside. They also came outside. The appellant made two fires, which hit Tasawar Ali on his head and lips, who fell on the ground. The appellant extended threats to them and fled away on the Motorcycle while brandishing the Pistol. Malik Muhammad Ramzan and Tasawar Ali succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
6. Ghulam Rasool (PW-7) has proved the memo of recovery (Ex.PH) regarding securing of blood- stained earth by the 'I.O. from the place where Muhammad Ramzan deceased was murdered and memo of recovery (Ex.PJ) regarding securing of blood-stained earth by the I.O. from the place where Tasawar Ali deceased was murdered. He also proved the memos of recovery (Ex.PK) whereby the I.O. secured three empties, one from the office of Malik Muhammad Ramzan and two lying near dead body of Tasawar Ali. He has also proved the memo of recovery (Ex.PE) regarding securing of last worn clothes of the deceased Tasawar Ali and memo of recovery (Ex.PF), whereby the last worn clothes of Muhammad Ramzan deceased were secured. Sabir Ali (PW-5) has stated that on spy information Muhammad Aslam, S.I. had apprehended Khalid Rasheed appellant on 13.07.2007 and on his personal search one Pistol .30 bore alongwith three live bullets & licence was recovered from his pocket and the same were secured alongwith the Motorcycle vide memo (Ex.PG). Muhammad Younas Umar, Inspector (PW-10) has proved the statement of the complainant (Ex.PL/1). Ijaz Latif (PW-12) has proved the site-plans with scale (Ex.PM, Ex.PM/1 & Ex.PM/2).
7. The investigation of this case was conducted by Muhammad Aslam, S.I. (PW-14), who has proved memo (Ex.PH). regarding securing of blood-stained earth from the place of murder of Muhammad Ramzan, memo (Ex.PJ) regarding securing of blood-stained earth from the palace of murder of Tasawar Ali, inquest report of Ramzan (Ex.PN), inquest report of Tasawar (Ex.PP), memo of recovery'
(Ex.PK) regarding securing of three empties P.8/1-3, applications for post-mortem examination (Ex.PA & Ex.PC) respectively of Tasawar Ali and Ramzan deceased, visual site-plan of the place of occurrence memo (Ex.PQ), memo of recovery (Ex.PE) regarding securing of last worn clothes of Tasawar Ali deceased, memo of recovery (Ex.PF) regarding securing of last worn clothes of Muhammad Raman deceased, and site-plans (Ex.PM, Ex.PM/1 & Ex.PM/2). He further stated that on 13.07.2007 he alongwith Sabir, HC-209 and Javed Akhtar, HC-734 arrested the appellant near Madina Petroleum, Vehari and at that time Pistol P.9, licence and Motorcycle were recovered from his possession, which were secured through memo (Ex.PG). He has also proved the sketch of Pistol (Ex.PG/2) and site-plan of the place of recovery (Ex,PG/3). The prosecution has also produced the reports of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PU & Ex.PU/1) and report of the FSL (Ex.PV).
8. The appellant in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the prosecution allegations and truthfulness of the witnesses produced by it. He also refuted the motive as set up by the prosecution and contended that nothing was recovered from him. He added that he was arrested on 12.07.2007 and his licenced Pistol was taken from his house. It is stated that it was an unseen occurrence and he has been made an escape goat due to departmental intrigues. He further added that the PWs are interested witnesses, whose presence is not plausibly accounted for and. that none of the independent persons, who were working or present in the Zoo had come forward to support the prosecution version. He, however, opted neither to lead the defence evidence nor to appear as witness under Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C.
9. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the arguments proceeded on to convict and sentence the appellant as mentioned above.
10.We have 'heard the arguments advanced by Malik Muhammad Saleem Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M. Amjad Rafiq, DPG, for the State and Sh. Jamshed Hayat, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant and have also minutely perused the record with their able assistance.
11.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that PWs11 and 13 are real brothers of deceased Tasawar Ali and Malik Muhammad Ramzan respectively so they are not independent witnesses; that both of them are not natural witnesses as there was no reason for their presence at the time and place of occurrence; that Kaleem Akhtar complainant could have informed his brother about ailment of his mother on telephone, whereas the explanation given for his presence by Muhammad Akram PW-13 i,e, delivery of Mangoes to his brother is not plausible as Mangoes are available in abundance in this area; that the injury statement (Ex.PA) and injury statement (Ex.PC), memo of recovery (Ex.PE) and memo of recovery (Ex.PF) do not bear the name of the accused and Ex.PA and Ex.PC even do not contain the name of the complainant so these documents were prepared subsequently and this fact shows that the case was registered after preliminary inquiry; that memo of recovery (Ex.PG), drawing of Pistol (Ex.PG/2) and site-plan of the recovery place (Ex.PG/3) clearly show that the date 13.07.2007 has been scribed by over-writing and the copy of, the memo of recovery (Ex.PG/1) shows that it was prepared on 12.07.2007 so this recovery is highly doubtful and cannot be used again him and as such the whole prosecution case falls on the ground; that the salary of the appellant was not stopped under the orders of the deceased Malik Muhammad Ramzan so the motive is not proved and that the empties were sent to the office of the FSL after arrest and alleged recovery of the Pistol so the same cannot be used against the appellant. In support of the contentions raised; reliance is placed on The State v. Muhammad Sharif and 3 others (1995 SCMR 635), Mst. Zahida v. The State (1996 MLD 476) (FSC), Gul Muhammad alias Gullu v. The State (PLD 1987 Lahore 196), Noor Ahmad v. State (PLJ 1982 Cr.C. (Lahore) 251), Muhammad Shafi and another v. The State (PLJ 1973 Lah. 478) and Muhammad Achar v. The State (PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Karachi) 222).
12.Learned DPG and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently controverted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and contended that it was a broad- day-light occurrence, which was promptly reported to the Police so the question of deliberations and preliminary inquiry does not arise; that Kaleem Akhtar (PW-11) brother of deceased Tasawar and Muhammad Akram (PW-13) brother of Malik Muhammad Ramzan have no enmity, ill will or grouse against the appellant so there were no reasons for them to implicate him in the false case or to depose against him falsely; that both these witnesses have given strong and plausible reasons for their presence at the time and place of occurrence; that there is no discrepancy in the statements of both these witnesses and their confidence could not be shaken during cross- examination so they are trustworthy and confidence inspiring and their evidence has rightly been believed by the learned trial Court; that the medical evidence lends full support to the ocular account furnished by the above-mentioned witnesses; that the documentary evidence (Ex.PR to Ex.PT/1) proves that the salary of the appellant was stopped and that PWs-11 & 13 have proved that he had nourished the grudge that it was stopped by Malik Muhammad Ramzan at the instance of Tasawar Ali and that the date i,e, 12.07.2007 on Ex.PG was initially mentioned due to clerical mistake, which has been corrected. In support of the contentions raised, reliance is placed on Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2011 SCMR 1046) and Sh. Muhammad Abid v. The State (2011 SCMR 1148).
13. Both PWs Kaleem Akhtar and Muhammad Akram have narrated the events and details of the occurrence in a straightforward manner. They corroborated each other's statement even to the extent of minor details. Both of them have stated that the appellant made first fire, which hit Malik Muhammad Ramzan on his head and thereafter when Tasawar Ali deceased ran towards outside, he followed him and made two fires lending on back side of his head and lip. The medical evidence fully lends support to the ocular account. The learned defence counsel has vehemently contended that Kaleem Akhtar was not required to go to the office and could have easily given intimation regarding ailment of his mother on telephone. He lives in the same vicinity and his coming to the office to furnish the information and take his brother as the ailing mother wanted to see him is a natural phenomena. The reason given by. Muhammad Akram for his visit is that he wanted to give Mangoes to his brother i,e, Malik Muhammad Ramzan deceased. It is true that the Mangoes are available in this area also but it is a natural desire that Mangoes grown on one's own land be given by way of gift to the near relatives. It is a common practice of this area so presence of this PW is also fully accounted for. Both these witnesses have no previous grudge or ill will against the appellant. Their brothers were murdered. Both of them have no reason to substitute the appellant by letting anyone else escort free. The FIR was promptly lodged i,e, after about one hour and 25 minutes of the occurrence. The post-mortem was conducted just after about 2/2 (1/2) hours of the occurrence. The inquest reports contain the brief details of the case, which reconcile with the contents of the FIR so the omission of the I.O. to mention the name of the complainant on two memos and name of the accused on some memos does not affect the prosecution case in any manner. Insufficiency, carelessness or bona fide omission of the I.O. should not hamper the course of justice and the prosecution should not suffer for the same.
14. It has vehemently been contended that the date i,e, 13.07.2007 given on memo of recovery (Ex.PG) is result of over-writing as is clear from the carbon copy (Ex.PG/1) of the same, which bears the 12th day of July, 2007 as date of recovery. The contents of this memo show that the accused had allegedly stated that the said Pistol was used on the preceding day i,e, 12.07.2007, which shows that it was written one day after 12.07.2007 i,e, 13.07.2007. Case Diary No, 1 dated 12.07.2007 does not contain the factum of arrest or recovery of Pistol etc., which is duly mentioned in case Diary No, 2 dated 13.07.2007. In these circumstances, it is obvious that due to clerical mistake an incorrect date was written, which has subsequently been corrected. It has then been argued that the empties and Pistol recovered from the appellant were sent to FSL at a belated stage so the report of the FSL has no value in the eyes of law. The parcels of empties and Pistol were delivered on 16.07.2007 and 18.07.2007 respectively. The empties were secured on 12.07.2007 and the Pistol was recovered on 13.07.2007. The report of FSL is merely a corroborative piece of evidence and in presence of the strong ocular account duly corroborated by the medical evidence, any weakness in this regard does not take away the intrinsic value of the ocular account and the medical evidence. It is established beyond any doubt that .the appellant has caused Qatal-i-Amd of two persons. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the motive is not established as Malik Muhammad Ramzan was not the person, who had stopped the salary of the appellant. Ex.PT/1 clearly shows that the salary of the appellant had been stopped as he did not join the training Course. Malik Muhammad Ramzan was Drawing and Disbursing Officer.
He had recommended the appellant's name for training. After absence and stoppage of salary, he must have considered that the deceased was responsible for his agonies. The motive is always hidden in the mind of the criminal and only the attending circumstances coupled with evidence lead to discovery of the same. In this case the motive is positively established through strong and reliable documentary evidence.
15. The appellant took lives of two innocents persons. The contention that he has fallen prey to departmental intrigues is totally false as both his colleagues had lost their lives and there was no reason for anyone else to rope him holy. The case law cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable on the facts of the present case due to distinguished facts.
16.For the reasons supra, we are of considered opinion that the appellant has caused Qatal-i- Amd of Malik Muhammad Ramzan deceased and Tasawar Ali deceased while they were present in the office. He has rightly been convicted and awarded the sentence he deserved by the learned trial Court. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The appeal is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed. The death penalty awarded to the appellant on two counts is confirmed. CSR No, 01 of 2008 is answered in the affirmative.