' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No,406-J of 2005 titled "Muhammad Ramzan alias Asif Ali v. The State" and Murder Reference No,583 of 2005 titled "State v. Muhammad Ramzan alias Asif Ali" as both these matters have arisen out of the same case i,e, F.I.R. No,277 of 2004 dated 4-9-2004 offence under sections 302 and 324, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station B-Division Okara.
2. Muhammad Ramzan alias Asif Ali appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No,406-J of 2005 against his conviction and sentence whereby he was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Okara vide judgment dated 24-9-2005 and sentenced as under:-- "So I convict Muhammad Ramzan accused under section 302(b), P.P.C. As Tazir to be sentenced to death on 3 counts. He be hanged by his neck till he is dead. He is also directed to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of each deceased person under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in default thereof he shall further undergo R.I for 6 months. Muhammad Ramzan accused has launched attack with intention to commit .Qatl-e-Amd of. Ali Raza and Zain Raza. Hence, he is also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. For ten years' R.I on two counts. He is also directed to pay fine of Rs,25,000 to each injured. In default of which he shall undergo further R.I for 6 months."
' The learned trial court has sent Murder Reference No,583 of 2005 for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to Muhammad Ramzan alias Asif Ali (convict).
3. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Ali, complainant (P.W.2), on 4-9-2004, reported to Arif Ali Sub-Inspector (P.W.12) through his statement (Exh.PA) that he sells eggs. His brothers Ali Raza (P.W.3) and Muhammad Ramzan alias Asif Ali (appellant) also deal in eggs. His both brothers live on Chubara. He (complainant) resides nearby. Today i,e, 4-9-2004 at about 4-15 a.m there was noise from the house of his brother Ali Raza (P.W.3). After hearing noise, the complainant, Master Asghar Ali son of Rehmat Ali caste Arain resident of Saleem Park, Okara and Muhammad Shahid son of Ch. Muhammad Latif caste Arain resident of Chak No,51/2-L who came to see the complainant, immediately rushed- to the house of Ali Raza (P.W.3) and saw that brother of the complainant namely Muhammad Ramzan alias Asif Ali (appellant) was holding toka in his hand and made toka blows on the person of. Ali Raza (P.W.3), due to which he fell down after sustaining injuries. Muhamad Ramzan (appellant) made toka blows upon Zain Raza who was lying nearby, so he also became injured. Thereafter he made two blows of toka one after another upon bhawaj of the complainant namely Mst. Manaza Bibi (deceased), hitting on her head and right side of her, forehead. She became injured. In other portion of courtyard of house, mother of the complainant namely Mst. Sughran Bibi (deceased) was offering Fajar prayer. He (appellant) made three toka blows one after the other hitting on right side of her ear, neck and head. He made toka blows upon Mst. Rasheedan Bibi (deceased) who was lying nearby hitting on her head and neck. She also became injured. Upon hue and cry of the complainant Muhammad Ramzan alias Asif Ali (appellant) succeeded in escaping from there with toka. The complainant himself and Master Asghar Ali tried to shift Ali Raza, Zain Raza, Mst. Manaza Bibi and Mst. Sughran Bibi (mother) to the Civil Hospital Okara for their treatment whereas Mst. Rasheedan Bibi succumbed to the injuries on the site. After leaving Muhammad Shahid to guard dead body of Mst. Rasheedan Bibi, the complainant took injured to the Civil Hospital, Okara. Mst Sughran Bibi (mother) and Mst. Manaza Bibi (Bhawaj) succumbed to the injuries before they were given first aid. Doctor referred Ali Raza and Zain Raza to Lahore Hospital. The complainant shifted the dead' bodies in the mortuary of the Hospital. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Shahid and Asghar Ali, besides the complainant.
' Motive behind the occurrence, as set out in the F.I.R., was that whole property was in the name of mother of the complainant and the appellant was demanding that the said property be alienated in his favour but their mother did not accede to it, therefore, Muhammad Ramzan alias Asif Ali (appellant) murdered them without any justification. .
4. Muhammad Ali complainant (P.W.2) proceeded to the Police Station. In the way, he met Arif Ali S.-I. (P.W.12) who recorded statement of the complainant (Exh.PA) and sent the same through Wajeeh-ur-Rehman 394/C to the Police Station for the registration of formal F.I.R. (Exh.PA/1). He then inspected the dead body of Mst. Rasheedan Bibi. He drafted an application (Exh.PQ) for the post mortem examination of Manaza Bibi and prepared inquest' report (Exh. PR) and handed over the dead body to Mushtaq Ahmad and Srafraz Ahmad constables for post mortem examination. Then he drafted application (Exh. PS) for the post mortem of Mst. Sughran Bibi and he also drafted inquest report of Mst. Sughran Bibi (Exh.PT). On the same time he also drafted application (Exh. PU) for the post mortem of Mst. Rasheedan Bibi. He also prepared the inquest report of Mst. Rasheedan Bibi (Exh.PV) and handed over the dead body to Gulzar Ahmad Constable for post mortem examination. He inspected the place of occurrence and took into possession bloodstained earth from the place of murder of Mst. Manaza Bibi, Mst Rasheedan Bibi and Mst. Sughran Bibi vide recovery memos (Exh. PC Exh. PD and Exh. PE) respectively. He prepared a rough site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PW). After the post mortem examination, the Doctors handed over the last worn clothes of the Mst. Rasheedan Bibi (deceased) which were produced by constables and I.O.
Took the same into possession Shalwar (P-1), Qameez (P-2), vide memo. (Exh.PF), last worn clothes of Manaza Bibi Shalwar (P-3), Qameez (P-4), Tilla (koka) (P-5), Bunyan (P-6) vide memo. (Exh.PG).
Constables also produced the last worn clothes of Mst. Sughran Bibi Shalwar (P-7), Qameez (P-8) which were taken into possession vide memo. (Exh.PN). On the same day he arrested Muhammad Ramzan appellant and interrogated him. On the disclosure and pointation of the appellant he effected recovery of toka (P-10) on 7-9-2004 which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. (Exh.PP). On 5-9-2004 he drafted applications for referring Ali Raza and Zain Ali injured to General Hospital Lahore (Exh.P-X and Exh.P-Y) respectively. On 6-9-2004 he took the Draftsman (P.W.4) to the place of occurrence for scaled site plan (Exh.PB and Exh.PB/I). He recorded statements of the prosecution witnesses and completed the investigation. He found the appellant guilty and recommended his challan.
5. Copies of the documents were provided to the appellant under section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure, vide order dated 9-2-2005. Formal charge was framed against the appellant on 8-3- 2005, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, in all. Haji Muhammad Faisal appeared as P.W.1 and stated that on 4- 9-2004 he identified the dead bodies of Sughran Bibi, Manaza Bibi and Rasheedan Bibi at the time of their post mortem examination. Muhammad Ali complainant (P.W.2) and Ali Raza injured (P.W.3) furnished ocular account as set out in the F.I.R. Saeed Nasir Hussain Mirza Draftsman appeared as P.W.4 and stated that on the direction of the Police and pointation of the witnesses of the ocular account he prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PB and Exh.PB/1). Gulzar Ahmad 391/C appeared as P.W.5 and stated that on 4-9-2004 he witnessed the recovery of blood- stained earth vide recovery memos (Exh.PC, Exh.PD and Exh.PE). He further stated that on the same day he was handed over the dead body of Mst. Rasheedan Bibi to escort it to the mortuary for post mortem examination. After the post mortem examination, the lady Doctor (P.W.8) handed over to him last worn clothes of deceased Mst. Rasheedan Bibi Qameez (P-1) and Shalwar (P-2) which were handed over to the Investigating Officer and secured vide memo. (Exh.PF). Sarfraz Ahmad 918/C appeared as P.W.6 and stated that on 4-9-2004 he was handed over the dead body of Manaza Bibi to escort it to the mortuary for post mortem examination. After the post mortem examination, lady Doctor (P.W.8) handed 4 over to him last worn clothes of deceased Mst. Manaza Bibi Qameez (P-3), Koka (Tilla) (P-5), Bunyan (P-6). He handed over the same to the Investigating Officer which were taken into possession vide memo (Exh.PG). Muhammad Ishtiaq Ahmad Senior Medical Officer, District Headquarters Hospital Okara appeared as P.W.7 and stated that on 4-9- 2004 he conducted medico-legal examination of Ali Raza injured (P.W.3) and Zain Ali injured. Lady Doctor Shagufta Yasmeen Woman Medical Officer District Headquarters Hospital Okara appeared as P.W.8 and stated that on 4-9-2004 she conducted post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Mst. Sughran Bibi (deceased), Mst. Manaza Bibi (deceased) and Mst. Rasheedan Bibi (deceased). Ghulam Haider A.S.-I. Appeared as P.W.9 and stated that being posted as Duty Officer, he drafted formal F.I.R. (Exh:PA/1) on the basis of complaint (Exh.PA). Mushtaq Ahmad 767/C appeared as P. W.10 and stated that on 4-9-2004 he witnessed the recovery of blood-stained earth which was taken into possession vide recovery memos (Exh.P-C, Exh.PD and Exh.PE). He further stated that on the same day he was handed over the dead body of Sughran Bibi to escort it to the mortuary for post mortem examination. After the post mortem examination, the lady Doctor (P.W.8) handed over to him last worn clothes of deceased Mst. Sughran Bibi Shalwar (P-7), Shirt (P-8) and locket (P-9). He handed over the , same to the Investigating Officer which were taken into possession vide memo. (Exh.PN). Abaid Ullah 359/C appeared as P.W.11 and stated that on the disclosure and pointation of the appellant he witnessed the recovery of toka (P-10), which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. (Exh.PP). Arif Ali S.-I. Who investigated the case appeared as P.W.12 and stated the various steps taken by him during the course of investigation.
Muhammad Tufail 1076/HC appeared as P.W.13 and stated that he was posted as Moharrar. On 4- 9-2004 the Investigating Officer handed over to him three sealed parcels said to contain blood- stained earth for keeping in safe custody at Malkhani. On 7-9-2004 the Investigating Officer handed over to him a sealed parcel said to contain toka. On 14-9-2004 he handed over all the aforementioned four parcels to Ghulam Rasool 614/C (P.W.14) for their onward transmission to the of Chemical Examiner Lahore. Ghulam Rasool 614/C appeared as P.W.14 and stated that on 14-9- 2004 Muhammad Tufail (P.W.13) handed over to him four sealed parcels. Three parcels said to contain blood-stained earth and one parcel said to contain bloodstained toka for their onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore. He deposited all the said parcels in the concerned office on the same day. Muhammad Mateen Ahmad Registrar Neuro Surgical Unit-II, General Hospital appeared as P. W.15 and stated Ali Raza and Zain Ali injured were admitted in the General Hospital on 4-9-2004 and both of them were discharged from the Hospital on 8-9-2004 and 7-9-2004 respectively. Learned Special. Public Prosecutor gave up Saddaqat Naveed (P.W.) being unnecessary vide his statement dated 16-3-2005. Learned Deputy District Attorney vide his statement dated 8-6-2005 gave up Master Asghar Ali and Shahid (P.Ws.) being unnecessary and vide statement dated 22-6-2005 Riaz ul Haq 377/C (P.W.) was also given up being unnecessary. On 12-9-2005, Learned Deputy District Attorney after tendering in. Evidence report of Chemical Examiner regarding toka (Exh.PBB), report of Chemical Examiner regarding blood-stained earth of Manaza Bibi (deceased) as Exh.PCC, report of Chemical Examiner regarding blood-stained earth of Mst. Rasheedan Bibi Exh.PDD, report of blood stained earth of Mst. Sughran Bibi (Exh.PEE), report of Serologist regarding toka (Exh.PFF), report of Serologist regarding blood-stained earth of Manaza Bibi (deceased) as Exh.PGG, report of Serologist regarding blood-stained earth of Mst. Rasheedan Bibi Exh.PHH report of Serologist regarding blood-stained earth of Mst. Sughran Bibi (Exh.PJJ) closed the prosecution evidence. Statement of the appellant under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded on 19-9-2005. To a question as to why the case against him and ,why the P.Ws. Had deposed against him, the appellant replied as under:-- "It is a false case. All the P.Ws. Are closely related inter se and with deceased. They have falsely involved me in this case due to business rivalry and due to their greedy nature and in order to take all of my business in their hands.
' The P.Ws. Have deposed against me due to enmity and their greedy nature by setting up a false motive against me."
' The appellant did not appear as his own witness as provided under section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure and he did not produce any witness in his defence.
6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted the appellant as detailed above.
Hence this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, contends that the complainant of the case namely Muhammad Ali (P.W.2) was not present at the spot as he has not given any plausible reason for his presence at, the place of occurrence in the early hours of the day; that though. The complainant is resident of the same street but he resides at the other corner; that it is the case of Ali Raza (P.W.3) that he raised hue and cry when he received first injury at the hands of the appellant whereas according to the complainant he reached at the place of occurrence on hearing noise from the house of P.W.3 and witnessed the occurrence and in his presence appellant gave first toka blow to Ali Raza (P.W.3); that two other witnesses namely Master Asghar Ali and Muhammad Shahid were also cited in the F.I.R. But they have not been produced in the witness box and as such the prosecution has withheld the best available evidence and in view of Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order; 1984 adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution; that even the statement of Ali Raza (P.W.3) does not fit in the circumstances because after receiving toka blows he was seriously injured and he could not witness the whole occurrence; that , according to the statement of Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad (P.W.7) condition of Ali Raza (P.W.3) was very serious and he was referred to the General Hospital Lahore; that story of the prosecution is improbable because a single person cannot cause such number of injuries on five persons; that the prosecution has not been able to prove motive part of the occurrence, therefore, this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charges levelled against him by extending him the benefit of doubt.
8. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, appearing on behalf of the State opposes this appeal on the grounds that it was a promptly lodged F.I.R. Wherein the appellant alone is nominated as accused with specific role of causing toka blows to five persons as a result whereof three persons namely Sughran Bibi, .Manaza Bibi and Rasheedan Bibi lost their lives whereas two namely Ali Raza and Zain Ali were seriously injured; that the appellant murdered his bhawaj; real mother and real maternal grandmother and injured his real brother and nephew in a, brutal manner; that there are two witnesses of the ocular account namely Muhammad Ali (P.W.2) and Ali Raza (P.W.3); that the ocular account is fully supported by the medical evidence; that recovery of the weapon of offence i,e, toka (P-10) was effected at the pointation of the appellant, which was further corroborated by the positive reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist; that the witnesses of the ocular account have no enmity for false implication of the appellant and even otherwise substitution in such-like cases is a rare phenomenon; that not even an iota of evidence has been brought on record warranting mitigation in the quantum of sentence, therefore, the appellant deserves no leniency. He prayed that appeal of the appellant be dismissed and murder reference be answered in the affirmative.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor- General for the State at a considerable length and have also gone through the record very minutely.
10. In this case the occurrence took place on 4-9-2004 at 4-15 a.m. The matter was reported to the Polite on the same day just after one hour and fifteen minutes through statement (Exh.PA) of Muhammad Ali complainant (P.W.2), recorded at 5-30. a.m. Upon which formal F.I.R. (Exh.PA/1) was registered through Rappat No,34 at 5-40 a.m. In the F.I.R. All necessary details of the occurrence are duly mentioned. Distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is one furlong.
We have noted that Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad Senior Medical Officer, District Headquarters Hospital Okara (P.W.7) who conducted medico-legal examination of Ali Raza (P.W.3) and Zain Ali minor injured opined that probable duration between the injuries and medical examination of the injured was within half an hour. Therefore, we hold that the F.I.R. Was recorded promptly, which rules out any chances of false implication and also establishes the fact that the complainant of the case has witnessed this occurrence and he was not chance; witness. Even according to the defence version Muhammad , Ali complainant (P.W.2) is the resident of the same street though at a different corner, therefore, his presence at the place of occurrence is not improbable. As far as the other witness namely Ali Raza (P.W.3) is concerned, he was resident of the house where the occurrence took place. Moreso, he was injured in the same incident at the hands of the appellant.
11. The ocular account furnished by Muhammad Ali complainant (P.W.2) and Ali Raza (P.W.3) is fully corroborated by the medical evidence furnished by Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad (P.W.7), Lady Dr. Shagufta Yasmeen (P.W.8) and Muhammad Mateen Ahmad (P.W.15).
' Ishtiaq Ahmad Senior Medical Officer, District Headquarters Hospital, Okara, while appearing as P.W.7 stated that on 4-9-2004 he conducted medico-legal examination of Ali Raza (P.W.3) and noted the following injuries on his person:-- "(1) An incised wound 8 x 10 c.m bone cut brain matter out on the left side of head 2 c.m above injury No,2.
(2) An incised wound 10 x 6 c.m bone cut brain matter out on left side of head 5 c.m above left ear.
(3) An incised wound 7 x 4 c.m bone cut 4 c.m above Injury No,2.
(4) An incised wound 9 x 4 cm bone cut brain matter exposed 6 c.m above injury No,2."
' In the opinion of P.W.7, sharp edged weapon was used in all above mentioned injuries. Probable duration between the injury and medico legal examination was within half an hour.
' On the same day he conducted medico-legal examination of Zain Ali. Raza aged four years and noted the following injuries on his person:-- "(1) An incised wound 9 x 4 c.m bone exposed 2 c.m above right ear.
(2) Incised wound 8 x 10 c.m bone exposed 4 c.m above injury No, 1."
' In the opinion of P.W.7, both the injuries were inflicted by sharp edged weapon. The probable duration of injuries was within half an hour.
' Doctor Shagufta Yasmeen, Woman Medical Officer, District Headquarters Hospital, Okara, while appearing as. P.W.8 stated that on 4-9-2004 she conducted post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Mst. Sughran Bibi, Mst. Manaza Bibi and Mst. Rasheedan Bibi.
' She found following injuries on the dead body of Mst. Sughran Bibi (deceased):-- "(1) An incised wound 9 x 3 c.m, brain exposed, on right temporal region.
(2) An incised wound 8 x 1-1/2 c.m on She top and middle of head. Brain was exposed.
(3) An incised wound 4 x 1 c.m. Just above the middial end of left clavicle muscle deep.
(4) An incised wound on the right breast inner side deep going through inter postal space."
' In her opinion cause of death was Injuries Nos.1, 2 and 4 in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem and caused by sharp edged weapon. Probable time between injury and death was immediate and death and post mortem was about 12/14 hours.
' She found following injuries on the dead body of Manaza Bibi (deceased):-- "(1) Incised wound 7 x % cm' on the forehead midline bone deep.
(2) Incised wound 10 x 5 c.m on left side back of head brain matter was coming out.
(3) An incised wound muscle deep on left hand index finger."
' The cause of death in her opinion was due to Injuries Nos.1 and 2 in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem and caused by sharp edged weapon. The time between injuries and death was immediate and time between death and post mortem was about 12/14 hours.
' She found following injuries on the dead body of Mst. Rasheeda Bibi (deceased):--
(1) An incised wound 10 x 2-1/2 cm on right side. Posterial part of head, brain matter was coming out.
(2) An incised wound 8 x 1-1/2 c.m. On right side of head, posterial part brain matter was coming.
(3) An incised Wound 7 x 1-1/2 c.m on right side of head, 3 c.m in front of injury No,2. Brain matter was coming out.
(4) An incised wound 4 x 1 c.m, on the back, mid-line 15 c.m from neck. Passing between the ribs, and injured the liver.
' Blood in heavy amount was present in abdominal cavity. All other viscerae were healthy. Stomach and bladder were empty."
' In her opinion death was caused by injuries Nos.1, 2, 3 an,d 4 in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem and by sharp edged weapon. Probable time between injury and death was immediate and time between death and post mortem was about 12/14 hours.
' Muhammad Mateen Ahmad, Registrar, Neuro Surgical Unit-II, General Hospital appeared as P.W.15.
He medically examined Ali Raza injured (P.W.3) and Zain Ali were admitted in the hospital on 4-9- 2004 and they were discharged from the hospital on 8-9-2004 and 7-9-2004, respectively.
12. Muhammad Ali complainant (P.W.2) and Ali Raza injured (P.W.3) are brothers inter se but at the same time they are also brothers of the appellant, therefore, mere relationship of the witnesses is not sufficient to discard their evidence. In this respect we respectfully refer to the case of "Haji v. The State" (2010 SCM R 650) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "Both the ocular witnesses undoubtedly are inter related and to the deceased but their relationship ipso facto would not reflect adversely against the veracity of the evidence of these witnesses in absence of any motive wanting in the case, to falsely involve the appellant with the commission of the, offence and there is nothing in their evidence to suggest that they were inimical towards the appellant and mere inter se relationship as above noted would not be a reason to discard their evidence which otherwise in our considered opinion is confidence-inspiring for the purpose of conviction of the appellant on the capital charge being natural and reliable witnesses of the incident."
13. While reiterating the above view, Hon'ble Supreme Court, of Pakistan in the, case titled "Muhammad Ahmad (Mahmood Ahmed) v. The State" (2010 SCM R 660) after thrashing out the whole case law on the subject at page 672 enunicated as under:- "23. What thus emerges from a survey of the above-quoted and other earlier decisions of this Court is that:-
(a) it is a mistaken notion that reliance could never ever be placed on the uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses; (b)looking for corroboration before placing reliance on interested testimony, was only a rule of caution prescribed by the Courts and not a rule of law commanded by the legislature; .
(c)that even the said was not an inflexible rule;
(d) the crucial test for accepting or rejecting a piece of evidence was its intrinsic worth and not really the source from which the same emanated; and finally that
(e) corroboration, even if required for the satisfaction of the conscience of the Court, did not always have to come from independent sources of unimpeachable character but could be gathered even from the circumstances available on record."
Moreover both these witnesses have no previous enmity with the appellant and there is no reason of his false implication by them in this case. It is a case of single accused and in such like cases it is improbable that kith and kin of the deceased would let off the real culprit and substitute some innocent person. Here we refer to the case of "Khalid Siaf LI Hah v.The State" (2008 SCM R 688) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:~ "Substitution is a phenomenon of a rare occurrence because even the interested witnesses would not normally allow real culprits for the murder of their relations let off by involving innocent persons. In this context, reference can usefully be made to the case of Irshad Ahmad and others v.
The State and others( PLD 1996 SC 138)."
14. The prosecution story stands fully corroborated by the recovery of the weapon of offence i.e toka (P-10) which was taken into possession through recovery memo. Exh.PP witnessed by Abaidullah 359/C (P.W.11) coupled with the positive reports of the Chemical Examiner (Exh.PBB) and Serologist (Exh.PFF).
15. "As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, we have noted that the appellant committed cold-blooded murder of his real mother (Sughran Bibi), maternal grandmother (Rasheedan Bibi) and bhawaj (Manaza Bibi) besides causing serious injuries to his real brother Ali Raza (P.W.3) and Zain Ali minor aged 4/5 years. There is not an iota of evidence warranting mitigation in the quantum of sentence. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly awarded the normal penalty of qatl-e-amd to the appellant and in the circumstances he deserved nothing lesser than death sentence. "
' In "Asad Mahmood versus Akhlaq Ahmed and another" (2010 SCM R 868) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-- "(28) " The penalty of death must be imposed if the Court finds the manner and method of incident to be in the nature of a brutality, horrific, heinous, shocking involving terrorist nature. Normal sentence in a conviction under I section 302(b), P.P.C. Is death except where Court finds some mitigating circumstances which may warrant imposition of lesser sentence.
(29)Having considered the matter from all angles in the light of material available on file, we are of the view that this is a case of premeditated occurrence in which two persons were brutally Murdered and learned trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced to Akhlaq Ahmed-accused to death.
(30)In view of the above discussion, Criminal Appeal No,282 of 2004 filed by the Asad Mahmoodappellant is allowed and the judgment dated 5-11-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi, is set aside and the judgment dated 19-10-2001 of The\ trial Court, is restored/confirined."
' In "Zafar v. The State" (2010 SCM R 1084) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-- "(9) We have gone through the evidence on record, judgments passed by the trial Court as well as by High Court with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and the leave granting order dated 25-3-2009. We are of the view that no mitigating circumstance has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant nor it appears from the record to call for awarding sentence less than the normal sentence of death under Section 302(b) P. P . C . The appellant is brother-in-law of the complainant and the only nominated accused in committing brutal murder of complainant's brother and there was no reason for false involvement of the appellant. The appellant has caused repeated hatchet blows on the vital parts of the deceased...."
' The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled "Muhammad Ahmad (Mahmood Ahmed) v. The State" (2010 SCM R 660) (supra) at page 676 observed as under:-- "34. Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, the learned Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, finally prayed, in the alternative, for reduction in the quantum of punishments awarded to the said eight appellants.
(35) This prayer of the learned counsel, to say the least, comes as a surprise to us. The lesser of the two penalties prescribed for qatl-eamd, is meant only for situations where the circumstances which had led to a murder or the manner in which such a crime had got committed invoked some sympathy for the convict. The present occurrence, however, was a barbaric, a brutal and a savage display of a reckless disregard for human lives where the perpetrators of the crime did not deserve any mercy or leniency."
' The apex Court in the case "Manzoor Ahmed v. The State" (1999 SCM R 132) while dealing with the question of quantum of sentence resolved as under:-- "Even otherwise, keeping in view seven incised wounds on the person of the deceased almost all on very vital parts of his body would suggest that the appellant dealt with-deceased very brutally and callously on a very petty grievance. It is settled law "to punish the offender in proportion to the character and extent of his guilt, to be deterrent for him and for the rest of the society without being unnecessarily harsh or needlessly indulgent.
' In view of all these facts the High Court was legally correct in converting the sentence of life imprisonment into death which is normal penalty for the type of murder perpetrated by the appellant. The appeal is found without merits and is, accordingly, dismissed."
16. In this backdrop of the situation, we hold that the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, there is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
17. Murder Reference No,583 of 2005 for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to Muhammad Raman alias Asif Ali (convict) is answered in the AFFIRMATIVE and the sentence of death is CONFIRMED on three counts.