' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.673 of 2006 filed by Muhammad Arif, convict against the judgment dated 11-12-2006 passed in case F.I.R.
No.46 of 2004 dated 15-5-2004 under sections 302, 324 and 34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Rangpur, District Muzaffargarh, whereby Muhammad Arif, appellant was convicted by learned Addl.
Sessions Judge-I, Muzaffargarh under section 302-B, P.P.C. And sentenced to Death along with compensation under section 544-A of Cr.P.C. Amounting to Rs.1,00,000 payable to the legal heirs of the deceased. In default thereof, to suffer Six Month S.I. The appellant was also sentenced to 10- years for attempting to commit Qatl-e-Amd of the injured P.Ws. And others under section 324, P.P.C. The appellant was given benefit under section 382-B of Cr.P.C. For the offence under section 324, P.P.C.
2. Murder Reference No.292 of 2007 sent by learned trial court for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of Muhammad Arif, appellant and Criminal Revision No.6 of 2007 filed by the complainant for enhancement of amount of compensation in accordance with law, shall also be disposed of through this judgment.
3. Brief facts of the case as given by P.W.7 Allah Ditta (complainant) in the F.I.R. Ex.PH are that on the night falling between 14 and 15 of May, 2004, when the complainant along with his family members was sleeping in his house, at the time of Fajar Prayer, all of a sudden, Muhammad Arif armed with pistol and Muzaffar Hussain armed with pistol entered into the house of the complainant. When the father of the complainant on hearing the sound, tried to wake up, Muzaffar Hussain, co-accused of the appellant, fired with pistol at him, which landed on right flank. On hearing the voice of fire, the complainant and other inmates of the house also woke up. Muhammad Arif made a fire with pistol which landed on the person of Mst. Nasreen, wife of the complainant, on right side of her chest.
Meanwhile, the complainant went into the room to fetch the Holy Quran, both accused persons started firing indiscriminately as a result of which Azhar, brother of the complainant, Kaneez Mai, mother of the complainant, Robina Bibi, sister of the complainant and Liaqat Ali, son of the complainant sustained injuries. 5/6 unknown accused persons were also standing outside the boundary wall of the house of the complainant. On hearing the hue and cry of the complainant and reports of firing, witnesses namely Mumtaz Ahmad, Noor Muhamm and other neighbourers were attracted at the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Mst. Nasreen Mai, wife of the complainant and Ghulam Muhammad, father of the complainant succumbed to the injuries at the spot. On the arrival of the witnesses, the assailants made good their escape, while making aerial firing.
4. Motive behind this occurrence was that Mst. Imtiaz Bibi, the sister of Muhammad Arif and Muzaffar Hussain was married with Nazeer Ahmad, brother of the complainant and Mst. Tasleem Mai, the sister of the complainant was married with Muzaffar Hussain. On account of differences, Mst. Imtiaz Mai and Mst. Tasleem Mai, were residing in the house of their parents. Due to this grudge, Muhammad Arif murdered the wife of the complainant and Muzaffar Hussain murdered the father of the complainant by firing with their respective pistols and injured Azhar, brother of the complainant, Kaneez Mai, mother of the complainant, Mst. Robina Bibi, sister of the complainant and Liaqat Ali, son of the complainant. It was learnt afterwards that Muhammad Arif, appellant in order to create a defence, after reaching his house, injured Mst. Imtiaz Bibi and Hafeez Bibi, his sisters with pistol shots.
5. After completion of investigation, challan was submitted before the learned trial court for trial.
Charge against the accused/appellant was framed to which, he pleaded not guilty and opted trial.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as ten (10)-witnesses:-- ' P.W.1., Muhammad Saddique (Patwari Halqa) deposed that he prepared scaled site plans Exh.PA, Ex.PA/1 and Exh.PA/2 on the direction of the I.O. And on the pointation of the P. Ws.
' P.W.2., Dr. Muhammad Moosa, Senior Medical Officer medically examined the injured Azhar Abbas son of Ghulam Muhammad and found the following injuries on his person.
(i) Circular penetrating wound with inverted margins measuring 2 X 2cm the lower chest right side 4-1/2 inches away from xiphisterneun. The corresponding cut present on the shirt. No burning and tattooing seen on clothes or on the skin.
(ii) Circular wound of penetrating nature, one above the right elbow joint and two below the elbow joint, each measuring 2 x 1 cm with inverted margins seen. Corresponding cuts in the shirt present.
No blackening and tattooing seen. No wound of exit seen. Both injuries were caused by fire arm weapon and appeared to be caused within 5 to 6 hours before examination because the injured was in serious condition and referred to Nishtar Hospital, Multan on same date for further treatment.
' On the same day he conducted medical examination of Rubina Mai daughter of Ghulam Muhammad and found the following injuries on her person.
(i) The circular penetrating wound with inverted margins measuring 2 x 1 cm in the lower part of left leg on inner side with corresponding cut in the Shalwar but no blackening and tattooing seen.
' On the same day he also medically examined Kaneez Mai widow of Ghulam Muhammad and found the following injury on his person.
(i) The circular penetrating wound with inverted margins measuring x 1 cm present on the sole part of left foot at hind margin of heal. The wound was through and through with exit wound measuring 2 x 2 cm present on upper part of left foot outer to outer maleolus. No blackening and tattooing was seen.
' On the same day, he also conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Ghulam Muhammad son of Hassan Bakhsh, deceased and found the following injuries on his person.
(i) The circular wound 1 x 1 cm on right lumber area two inches away from the mid line with inverted margin going deep into peritoneal cavity. No blackening or tattooing observed.
(ii) Semi circular wound of exit present on left lower part of abdomen measuring 1-1/2 inch x 2 inch cm. 6-inches away from umbilicous. The margins were everted and liquefied. Blood was coming out. No burning, blackening and tattooing was observed. On deep dissection the peritoneal cavity was full of blood with rupturing of right colon, mesentery and its vessels. Left colon was also ruptured, left kidney was also ruptured but right kidney was intact. When skull was opened membrances brain and spinal cord was found healthy.
' Cause of death was declared hypovolumice and neurogenic shock which was sufficient enough to cause death in ordinary course of life. The post mortem examination was conducted within 24 hours after death.
' P. W.3 Zahoor Ahmad, 478-C deposed that on 22-5-2004 a sealed Phial and sealed parcel of envelope was handed over to him by the Moharrar for its onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner, which he deposited in the said office.
' P.W.4 Imtiaz Ali 741/HC deposed that on 15-5-2011 he had lodged a formal F.I.R. Exh.PH, on the basis of written complaint brought before him by Altaf Hussain 803/C-I. He further deposed that on the same day Inspector/S.H.O. Handed over him two sealed parcels said to contain blood stained earth, one sealed parcel of empty bullet of pistol .30-bore and one sealed parcel of swabs. He further deposed that on 19-5-2004, he handed over two sealed parcels said to contain blood stained earth for transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner, Punjab Lahore and a sealed parcel said to contain empty bullet of pistol .30-bore for transmission to the office of Forensic Science Lab. Punjab, Lahore to Nasir Abbas, 684/C and on 22-5-2004, he entrusted sealed parcel of swa bs to Zahoor Ahmad, 478/C for transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Multan.
Further deposed that on 30-5-2004 a sealed parcel of 30-bore pistol the weapon of offence was entrusted to him, which he kept in Malkhana and on 26-5-2004, he handed over the same to Nasir Abbas, 684/C for transmission to the office of the Forensic Science Lab. Lahore. Further deposed that on 15-5-2004 last worn clothes of deceased Ghulam Muhammad, after post mortem and that of Mst. Nasreen Mai after post mortem were handed over to him, which he kept in Malkhana, intact.
' P. W.5, Nasir Abbas 684/C deposed that on 19-5-2004 Moharrar/Head Constable handed over him two parcels of blood stained earth and one parcel of empty pistol .30-bore, which he deposited to the office of Chemical Examiner as well as Forensic Science Laboratory Lahore, respectively.
' P. W.6 Lady Doctor Salma Bano Ghauri conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Nasreen wife of Allah Ditta and found the following injuries on her person.
(i) A circular wound measuring 1.5 x 1.5 cm present just above the upper boarder of right clavicle bone. Wound was going deep into the chest cavity. Its margins were inverted and surrounding blackening was quite evident. Blood was coming out of the wound.
(ii) A semi circular wound measuring 1.5 x 2.00 cm on upper part of right scapulas. Margins of this wound were everted and liquefied blood was coming out of the wound.
' The cause of death of the deceased was declared severe haemorrhage, leading to severe hypo- volaemia and neurogenic shock leading to death in ordinary course of nature. The period between injury and death was immediate while between death and post mortem was within 24-hours. P. W.
7, Allah Ditta son of Ghulam Muhammad was the complainant of the case and he deposed the same story as parrated in the F.I.R.
P. W.8, Mumtaz Ahmad son of Khuda Bakhsh was the witness of ocular account and he supported the prosecution story. P. W.9, Rubina Mai daughter of Ghulam Muhammad was the injured witness of ocular account and he supported the prosecution story. P. W.10, Saifullah, Inspector was Investigating Officer of this case, he deposed regarding the steps of investigation of this case.
7. Learned APP and DDA for the state gave up the P.Ws. Azhar Abbas, Mst. Kaniz, Moor Muhammad, Muhammad Akram 48/C being un-necessary and closed the prosecution evidence after submitting the report of Chemical Examiner as Exh.PY, report of Serologist as Exh.PZ and report of Forensic Science Laboratory Exh.PAA in evidence.
8. After recording the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342 of Cr.P.C. Wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution. The accused/appellant neither produced any defence evidence nor opted to depose on oath as required under section 340(2) of Cr.PC. In reply to the question that why this case was against you and why the P.Ws. Had deposed against you, Muhammad Arif, appellant replied as under:-- "Ghulam Muhammad, deceased was a foot tracer (Khoji) and a criminal person. Many persons of the locality including neighbourers of the deceased were inimical towards Ghulam Muhammad, deceased and his son. Besides it, the deceased Ghulam Muhammad along with his son Allah Ditta, complainant and other son Nazeer Ahmad trespassed into the house of Allah Ditta son of Ghulam Sarwar in the year 1999 and this matter was reported at Police Station "Nawa Shehr Kabirwala. ".
After this, a private complaint was also lodged against Ghulam Muhammad, deceased, his son, Nazeer, Allah Ditta and others. It is a blind murder and unseen occurrence, which took place at night. Some unknown persons committed the said occurrence (WARDAT). I have falsely been involved in this case due to suspicion and scape goat because the murder was untraceable. The complainant party took revenge against me and my family. I was employed in Pak Army. I am innocent. Local police arrested me in the hospital when I was nursing my injured sister. All the P. Ws.
Were interse related.
9. After conclusion of the trial, above mentioned conviction and sentence was passed against the appellant.
10. The appellant through the instant appeal has challenged the validity of judgment dated 11-12- 2006 passed by the learned trial court.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that this occurrence took place at Fajar prayer time whereas the complainant reported the matter to the police at 9-30 am with extraordinary delay of 4/5 hours, therefore, F.I.R. Was lodged after consultations and deliberations; that prosecution did not prove motive against the appellant rather motive was attributed to Muzaffar Hussain, co- accused (since PO), who is real brother of the appellant; that learned trial Court has also disbelieved the motive part of prosecution story; that ocular account in this case was furnished by Allah Ditta, P.W.7/complainant, who is husband of Mst. Nasreen Mai, deceased and son of Ghulam Muhammad, deceased; whereas Mumtaz Ahmad, P.W.8 is the cousin of Allah Ditta, complainant and Mst. Robina Mai, P.W.9 is sister of Allah Ditta, complainant and prosecution did not produced any independent witness in order to establish its case in spite of the fact that occurrence took place in a thickly populated area; that occurrence took place at night time but no source of identification was given by the prosecution; that there were material contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses; that during trial Azhar Hussain and Mst. Kaneez Mai, the injured witnesses were not examined by the prosecution whereas the 4th alleged injured witness Liaqat Ali was not medically examined by the doctor, which adversely affects the prosecution case; that the ocular account furnished by prosecution is in conflict with medical evidence as the only specific injury attributed to the appellant on the person of Mst. Nasreen Mai, deceased reflects blackening around her wound but according to the prosecution appellant fired at Mst. Nasreen Mai, deceased from a distance of 13/14 karams, which is clear indicative of the fact that the witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence; that according to the prosecution story two pistols were used in the occurrence and six empties were allegedly secured from the place of occurrence by the police but according to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory all six empties were found to be fired from the pistol allegedly recovered from the possession of Muhammad Arif, appellant, which shows that the recovery was planted and fabricated against the appellant; that prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and appellant has been falsely involved in this case on account of suspicion, therefore, it is prayed that appeal of the appellant be accepted and appellant be acquitted. Lastly, it has been submitted that as only specific injury attributed to the appellant on the person of Mst. Nasreen Mai was in conflict with medical evidence and that motive has not been believed by the learned trial Court as the same was not directly attributed to the appellant, therefore, at least it was not a case of capital punishment.
12. Learned D.P.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed this appeal and contends that the delay in lodging F.I.R. Has been duly explained by the prosecution; that prosecution has proved the motive part of prosecution story; that although all the three eye- witnesses are closely related interse and related with both deceased persons but as they are not inimical to the appellant, therefore, mere relationship of the P.Ws. With the deceased is not a valid ground to discard their evidence; that the prosecution has proved its case by producing Mst.
Robina Mai, P.W.9, who was an injured witness of this case; that ocular account furnished by the prosecution finds corroboration from the medical evidence; that occurrence did not take place at night time rather it took place at dawn time, therefore, there was no need of mentioning the source of identification in the F.I.R.; that recovery of pistol from the possession of the appellant further strengthens the prosecution case as according to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, the empties secured from the place of occurrence were found fired from the pistol recovered at the instance of the appellant; that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through motive, reliable ocular account corroborated by medical evidence and evidence of recovery; that it was a premeditated occurrence as appellant along with his co-accused persons came from a distance of 8-miles and committed the murder of two innocent persons and injured three P.Ws. On a trivial motive, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed and the appellant does not deserve any leniency in the sentence.
13. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
14. It has been noticed that this occurrence took place on 15-4-2004 at about Fajar Prayer time whereas matter was reported to the police by Allah Ditta, complainant at 9-30 a.m. Although apparently this F.I.R. Was lodged with the delay of about 5-hours but we have observed that the distance of police station from the place of occurrence was 15-k.m. This delay was properly explained by the complainant, who, during cross-examination submitted that after the occurrence, he along with injured witnesses travelled from the place of occurrence up to the river on a tractor trolley and after crossing the river iry.Boat, he hired a "DALA" from Adda Rangpur and on his way to Police Station Investigating Officer met him at Chowk Rangpur where statement of the complainant Exh.PL was recorded by the Investigating Officer, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. And the same was lodged after consultations and deliberations, is without any force. This F.I.R. Contains the full detail of occurrence, the name of accused persons, manner of the occurrence, weapon of offences used during the occurrence and name of P.Ws.
15. Motive behind this.Occurrence as set up by the prosecution was that Mst. Imtiaz Bibi, sister of Muhammad Arif, appellant and Muzaffar Hussain, co-accused (since PO) was married with Nazeer Ahmad, brother of the complainant whereas. Mst.Tasleem Mai sister of complainant was married with Muzaffar Hussain, co-accused (since PO). On account of differences between these exchange marriages, Mst. Irntiaz Bibi and Mst. Tasleem Mai were residing in the houses of their respective parents and due to this grudge Muhammad Arif, appellant committed the murder of Mst. Nasreen Mai wife of the complainant whereas Muzaffar Hussain, co-accused (since PO) murdered Ghulam Muhammad, father of the complainant and they (Muhammad Arif, appellant and Muzaffar Hussain, co-accused (since PO) injured Azhar, Mst. Kaneez Mai and Mst. Razia Bibi etc.
16. In order to prove the motive, prosecution produced Allah Ditta, P.W.7, who corroborated the motive part of prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. Exh.PH in toto. According to the evidence of this P.W., family dispute between the parties erupted one month prior to the instant occurrence when both ladies Mst. Imtiaz Bibi and Mst. Tasleem Mai, after leaving their children in their houses started residing in the houses of their respective parents. Perusal of evidence of Allah Ditta, P.W.7 reveals that defense did not cross-examine the P.Ws. On the motive part of prosecution story and even it was not suggested to the P.Ws. That prosecution has set up a false motive against the appellant, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that Muhammad Arif, appellant was not connected with the motive part of prosecution story, can not be believed because the sister of Muhammad Arif, appellant was married with Nazeer Ahmad, brother of Allah Ditta, complainant whereas sister of Allah Ditta, complainant was married with Muzaffar Hussain, co-accused (since PO), brother of Muhammad Arif, appellant. As on account of dispute, both ladies were residing in the houses of their parents, hence, it cannot be stated that the appellant had no concern with the motive of prosecution story as his real sister, on account of differences, was residing in the house of her father, therefore, we are of the considered view that Muhammad Arif, appellant along with Muzaffar Hussain, co-accused (since PO), his real brother, on account of aforementioned motive, had committed this occurrence and the prosecution has proved the motive part of the prosecution story,' beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Ocular account of this case was furnished by Allah Ditta, P.W.7, Mumtaz Ahmad, P.W.8 and Mst.
Robina Mai, P.W.9 (injured witnesses). Allah Ditta, P.W.7, complainant of this case deposed that on 15-4-2004 at about Fajar Prayer time, he along with his family members was available in his house, when all of a sudden Muhammad Arif, appellant armed with pistol along with Muzaffar Hussain, (since PO) armed with pistol entered into his house. Muzaffar Hussain (since PO) fired with pistol which landed on the right flank of Ghulam Muhammad, father of the complainant whereas Muhammad Arif, appellant fired with pistol which landed on the right side of the chest of Mst.
Nasreen Mai, wife of the complainant, thereafter appellant along with Muzaffar Hussain (since PO) resorted to indiscriminate firing whereby Azhar Hussain, Mst. Kaneez Mai, Mst. Robina Mai and Liaqat Ali sustained injuries. The other two eye-witnesses of the occurrence Mumtaz Ahmad, P.W.8 and Mst. Robina Mai, P.W.9 (injured witness) also deposed on the same lines as Allah Ditta, P.W.7 and corroborated him in all material aspects of the case. The defense cross-examined all the three witnesses at some length but their evidence was not shattered by the defense in any manner.
These eye-witnesses have given full account of events leading to the murder of the deceased persons and injuries to the witnesses and D remained unanimous on all material points. Allah Ditta, P.W.7 is husband of Mst. Nasreen Mai, deceased and son of Ghulam Muhammad, deceased and he has is also related with all injured witnesses whereas Mumtaz Ahmad, P.W.8 is cousin of Allah Ditta, complainant and Mst. Robina Mai, P.W.8 is sister of Allah Ditta, complainant but they are not inimical to the appellant in order to falsely implicate him in this occurrence rather sister of Muhammad Arif, appellant was married with Nazeer Ahmad, brother of the complainant. Mere relationship of P.Ws. E with the deceased is not a valid ground to discard their testimony. In this respect, we respectfully refer the case of Khizar Hayat v. The State (2001 SCMR 429) wherein the august Supreme has observed as under:- "The statement of the 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. Essentially this proposition has been considered in number of cases and this Court had declined to give weight to it, in 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 can not be taken into consideration without F corroboration and even uncorroborated version can be relied upon if supported by the surrounding circumstances."
18. Perusal of evidence of P.Ws. Reveals that this occurrence took place in a village where 60/70 houses are situated. Although no independent person was produced by the prosecution in order to prove its case but ordinarily independent persons avoid to become a witness in the murder cases in order to avoid enmity with accused persons. Allah Ditta, P.W.7 and Mst. Robina Mai, P.W.9, are inmates of the house where occurrence took place and Mumtaz Ahmad, P.W.8, is their neighbourer, therefore, all the three witnesses are natural witnesses, so, in our view their evidence is confidence inspiring.
19. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that this occurrence took place at night time but no source of identification was given by the prosecution in the F.I.R. Has no force as during cross-examination defense has clarified from Allah Ditta, P.W.7, who categorically stated that the occurrence took place one hour after the AZAAN of Fajar Prayer, therefore, this occurrence took place at dawn time.
20. Medical evidence was furnished by Lady Dr. Salma Bano Ghouri, P.W.6, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Nasreen Mai, deceased whereas Dr. Muhammad Moosa, Senior Medical Officer, R.H.C., Rangpur, P.W.2 medically examined Azhar Abbas, Mst. Robina Mai and Mst. Kaneez Mai and conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Ghulam Muhammad son of Hussain Bakhsh. Perusal of evidence of Lady Dr. Salma Bano Ghouri and statement of Dr. Muhammad Mossa reveals that medical examination furnished by them is in conformity with eyewitnesses account and has provided necessary corroboration thereto.
' Specific allegation against the appellant was that he caused injury with pistol which landed on the chest of Mst. Nasreen Mai, deceased, which fact is fully born out from the statement of Lady Dr. Salma Bano Ghouri, P.W.6. The injury observed by the Doctor on the person of Mst. Nasreen Mai, deceased as noted as under:--
(1) A circular wound measuring 1.5 x 1.5 cm present just above the upper border of right clavicle bone. Wound was going deep into the chest cavity. Its margins were inverted and surrounding blackening was quite evident. Blood was coming out of the wound.
' A semi circular wound measuring 1.5 x 2.00 cm on upper part of right scapulas. Margins of this wound were everted and liquefied blood was coming out of the Around.
' This injury was caused by fire-arm and was ante-mortem in nature. The time that elapsed between death and post mortem examination as observed by the doctor, was within 24-hours, which also corroborates the time of occurrence as narrated by the witnesses. The medical evidence also corroborates the allegation against Muzaffar Hussain, co-accused (since PO), who caused injury on the person of Ghulam Muhammad, father of the complainant and also injuries on the person of injured witnesses attributed to Muhammad Arif, appellant and Muzaffar Hussain (since PO)
21. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant in this case was that it was an unseen occurrence as medical evidence was in conflict with ocular account qua the distance from where Muhammad Arif, appellant fired at the deceased as according to the opinion of the lady Doctor, who conducted post modem examination on the dead body of Mst. Nasreen Mai, blackening around the wound of Mst. Nasreen Mai, deceased was available but according to evidence of Allah Ditta, P.W.7/complainant, the appellant fired at the deceased' from a distance of 13/14 karams. This contention of learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived as per the statement of Allah Ditta, P.W.7/complainant, who categorically has stated that Muhammad Arif, appellant fired at the deceased Mst. Nasreen Mai from a distance of one/half karam, therefore, in our view ocular account qua the distance from where the appellant fired at the deceased is in conformity with the medical evidence furnished by the Lady Doctor. We have noted that Allah Ditta, P.W.7/complainant, has stated in evidence that "Arif appellant made fire on deceased Mst. Nasreen Mai from a distance of 13/14 karams from the western side from the co-accused Muzaffar Hussain", therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that ocular account is fully corroborated by medical evidence.
22. Other' incriminating piece of evidence against the appellant is recovery of pistol (P8) from his possession on 23-5-2004, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PR by the Investigating Officer in presence of Mumtaz Ahmad, P.W.B. Perusal of record reveals that the empties secured from the place of occurrence were transmitted to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory on 19-5-2004 and these empties were received in the said office on 20-5-2004. Pistol recovered at the instance of the appellant was received in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory on 27-5-2004. Perusal of report of Forensic Science Laboratory reveals that all the empties secured from the place of occurrence were found fired from the pistol recovered at the instance of I the appellant, therefore, we believe that pistol recovered at the instance of the appellant is also a corroborative piece of evidence against the appellant.
23. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through motive, credible ocular account, J medical evidence and evidence of recovery of weapon of offence, therefore, appellant do not deserve any leniency in is sentence consequently, appeal (Criminal Appeal No.673 of 2006) filed by Muhammad Arif, appellant stands dismissed. Conviction and sentence of Death awarded to Muhammad Arif, appellant by learned trial Court is maintained.
' MURDER REFERENCE IS ANSWERED IN POSITIVE.
DEATH SENTENCE IS CONFIRMED.
24. Allah Ditta, complainant has filed Criminal Revision No.6 of 2007 seeking modification in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court to the extent of enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded to the respondent No.2.
25. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that amount of Rs.1,00,000 awarded to Muhammad Arif, respondent No.2/convict to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation as required under section 544-A of Cr.P.C. In this case is inadequate.
26. Arguments heard. Record perused.
27. It has been noticed by us that this Criminal Revision No.6 of 2007 was filed on 10-1-2007 and it has not been admitted for regular hearing till yet. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has not urged any valid ground that why such compensation is liable to be enhanced. We have already dismissed the appeal filed by Muhammad Arif, respondent No.2/convict (Criminal Appeal No.673 of 2006).
28. In view of all above, we are of the view that learned trial Court has adequately burdened Muhammad Arif, respondent No.2/convict to pay Rs.1,00,000 as compensation under section 544-A of Cr.P.C. Payable to the legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, this Criminal Revision No.6 of 2007 stands dismissed in limine.