QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J:-. Pervez Akhtar, 60/65, his wife Firdous Kausar, 50, daughters Ghazala, 38, Bushra, 27 and granddaughter Zarmina Mehak, 18/20, were found lying dead in their residential house situated in village Dhok Tama Dakhli Pandori at a distance of 4-k.m from Police Station Mangla Cantt. District Jehlum. Incident was reported by Mubeen Akhtar (PW-15) through statement (Ex.PH) recorded by Fazal Hussain, S.I (PW-16) 3.55 p.m at the spot on 21-01-2010. None is nominated as accused nor any motive is cited therein, however, there is a reference of three persons entering the house. Formal First Information Report (Ex.PH/1) is chalked out by Muhammad Ashfaq, ASI (PW-2) at 4:10 p.m. The dead bodies of Pervez Akhtar and Firdous Kausar were lying in the drawing room whereas those of Ghazala, Bushra and Razmina Mehak were present in their bedrooms; their throats were slit with some sharp edged weapon.
Investigating Officer during spot inspection, secured blood and having found empty jewelry boxes littering the scene added Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860; this is first inference drawn in the wake of registration of the case. Other recoveries include a mobile handset (P-41), empty box (P-79) with IMEI Number printed thereon, a bloodstained nylon string (P-40), secured vide inventories. Crime scene was captured through photographs (Ex.P/1-10). Dead bodies were dispatched to the mortuary; autopsy was conducted on the dead body of Pervez Akhtar by Dr. Masood Iqbal (PW-5), who noted six incised wounds on the neck, axilla, abdomen and left thigh causing massive damage to thyroid, major blood vessels and small intestine. Injuries to the neck were blamed as cause of death. Probable time between the injuries and death was reckoned as immediate whereas between death and postmortem 12 to 24 hours. Firdous Kausar examined by Dr. Farah Bashir (PW-6) was found to have an incised wound 20 x 3 cm in front of neck extending from right to left mandible below chin, deep to cervical vertebrae, injuring all major vessels, thyroid cartilages and trachea; the second wound measuring 4 x 3 cm was below the chin at the upper level of thyroid cartilages. Injury on the neck was declared as cause of death with probable time between injury and death as immediate and between death and postmortem 12 to 24 hours. Dead body of Ghazala deceased was also examined by this witness, she noted incised wound at the midline area of fronto parietal region on the left shoulder with clinical evidence of fracture of joint accompanied by multiple lacerated wounds on left thumb, middle, index and ring fingers. Two incised wounds on the front of neck were also noted; these are massive incisions i.e. 15 x 3 cm and 20 x 3 cm deep to the level of vertebra, damaging all vessels and structure. Injuries on the neck caused the death immediately after their receipt and time between death and postmortem was given as 12-24 hours. Dr. Tayyaba Farooq (PW-1) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Zarmina Mehak and noted four incised wounds on her neck cutting all major vessels, trachea and hyoid bone. These are declared as cause of death. The witness also examined dead body of Bushra deceased and noted one incised wound on the right side of neck with a stab wound on the right fossa accompanied by small laceration between thumb and index finger. Injury No.1 on the neck was declared as cause of death. This witness omitted to give inter-se duration between injuries, death and postmortem in her statement, however, same finds mention in the autopsy report Ex.PE as immediate and within 12 to 24 hours respectively. Viscera sent for chemical analysis were devoid of poison and vaginal swa bs did not contain seminal traces. The Investigating Officer on 23-1-2010 moved application for collection of cell phone data, in respect of IMEI Number printed on empty box (P-79). Mirza Muhammad Umer (PW-13) furnished the first substantive clue when he disclosed about the presence of three persons wrapped in Chaddars with a motorcycle entering the house after its main door was opened on their knock; his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was recorded on 21-1-2010; this also finds mention in complaint (Ex.PH); his initial position before the Investigating Officer was that owing to darkness he could not identify the entrants, nonetheless, it was the first substantive clue about the presence of three persons shortly before the incident as prior to that none knew about the number of assailants. One Fazal-e-Karim was examined by the Investigating Officer on 24-1-2010 who pointed his finger, for the first time on Qadeer Ahmad, appellant, son-in-law of Pervez Akhtar, deceased married with his daughter Shabnam; Fazal-e-Karim passed away before he could enter the witness box. When approached, Qadeer Ahmad appellant was not found at his residence on 27-1-2010, however, a motorcycle SR/70 (P-21) with the broken headlamp and some traces of blood on the seat was taken into possession. The appellants were arrested on 31-1-2010; it was a major breakthrough in the case followed by a number of incriminatory recoveries. The appellants at the time of their arrest got recovered their cell phone handsets (P-42), (P-43) and (P-44). Pursuant to disclosure, Qadeer Ahmad led to the recovery of gold bangles P-45/1-4, gold rings (P-46/1-2), gold locket (P- 47), five currency notes of 1000 denomination each (P-48/1-5), four currency notes of 500 denomination (P-49/1-4), Defense Saving Certificates of Pervez Akhtar, deceased (P-50/P51) from his rented residential house in village Pakwal, followed by Khurram Shahzad who got recovered gold bangles (P-52/1-4), gold ring (P-53), gold earring (P-54), gold chain (P-55), cash (P-56/1-14), Defense Saving Certificates (P-57/ P-58/P-59), laptop (P-60), Movie Camera (P-61), two still cameras (P-62) and (P-63), two bags (P-64) and (P-65) from his residential house in village Aima Ilyas. Naveed Asghar, appellant was the last to lead the Investigating Officer to the recovery of gold ring (P-66), pair of earrings (P-67/1-2), a pair of tops (P-68/1-2), fourteen currency notes of 500 denomination each (P-69/1-14) and a Defence Saving Certificate (P-70) from his residential house in Jandwal on 31-1-2010; the seizures were incorporated into inventories. On 2-2-2010, in the wake of disclosure, Naveed Asghar, appellant led to the recovery of Churri (P-71), followed by Khurram Shahzad who got recovered Churri (P-73) and a pair of bloodstained gloves (P-74/ 1-2). Qadeer Ahmad, appellant pursuant to a disclosure, led to the recovery of pistol (P-77) and a pair of gloves (P-78/1-2). Naveed Asghar, appellant arranged production of mobile handset (P-72) through his brother whereas Khurram Shahzad again through his brother sent for mobile handset (P-75) and (P-76). On 3-2-2010, the Investigating Officer, unsuccessfully attempted for recording of confessional statements of the appellants, however, a learned Magistrate declined to record the confessional statements. Mehmood Ahmad (PW-12), a Goldsmith, who had founded the ornaments, identified them before the Investigating Officer on 16-2-2010 with identification memo (Ex.PQQ). Cell phone data secured by the Investigating Officer is Ex.PTT. According to Forensic Reports, Churris (P-71), (P-73) and gloves (P-74) were found stained with the blood of human origin.
On indictment, the appellants claimed trial, pursuant whereto, prosecution produced 16 witnesses besides relying upon forensic reports, confronted by a unanimous denial by them, describing the incident as blind murders; the trial culminated into their convictions vide impugned judgment dated 22-1-2011; they stand convicted under Sections 302(b) read with 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 on five counts with sentence of death on each with compensation of Rs. 100,000/- or to undergo six months S.I. Each; they are convicted under Section 392 of the Code ibid and sentenced to 5 years R.I with the fine of Rs. 10,000/- each or to undergo three months S.I in the event of default; lastly they are convicted under Section 452 of the Code ibid and sentenced to 3 years R.I. With the fine of Rs. 10,000/- each or to undergo three months S.I in the event of default with benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Crl. Appeal No. 16-J of 2011 impugns the vires of convictions and sentences. Crl. Revision No. 31 of 2011 is directed for enhancement of compensation whereas State seeks confirmation of death penalty vide Murder Reference No. 25 of 2011; these are being decided through this single judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contend that there is no direct evidence of the crime; that the appellants are being hounded on the basis of a misplaced and misconceived suspicion; that Mirza Muhammad Umer (PW-13) massively improved upon his previous statement, duly confronted to him and this according to the learned counsel destroyed intrinsic value of his deposition and thereby caused a breach in the chain of circumstances; that there is a discrepancy between seizure of handsets at the instance of Khurram Shahzad in between the recovery memo and statement made by Fazal Hussain, S.I; that there was no earthly reason for Qadeer Ahmad, appellant to eliminate entire family of his in-laws. The bottom-line of arguments raised by the learned counsel is that prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge. Contrarily, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has defended the judgment and instead prayed for confirmation of death penalty on the ground that this gruesome and brutal murder of five innocent persons by no other than a son-in-law and his accomplices is shocking to human conscience; that under the circumstances best available evidence was collected and produced before the Court; that seizure of empty box with IMEI Number, subsequently, tallied with a handset and SIM therein through automated data alongwith recoveries at the instance of each appellant confirmed the charge beyond a shadow of doubt. It has been argued that inter-se relationship between Qadeer Ahmad, appellant with the deceased is not denied and it was only possible through his deceptive connivance that Naveed Asghar and Khurram Shahzad co-accused made their entry possible inside the house. Lastly it is argued that taken from any angle through any methodology of appraisal of evidence, case of the prosecution stands proved to the hilt.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Prosecution case is hinged upon various pieces of circumstantial evidence; Mobeen Akhtar (PW- 15) is a real brother of Pervez Akhtar, deceased; he did not nominate anyone in the crime report nor cited any motive thereof; he merely pointed out presence of three persons on a motorcycle outside the house while entering therein and this information was conveyed to him by Mirza Muhammad Umer (PW-13). Both Mirza Muhammad Umer (PW-13) and Mobeen Akhtar (PW-15) are unambiguously clear in not nominating any accused by name; he, however, deviated from his previous statement and nominated the appellants in the Court during the trial; he is duly confronted with his statement based upon improvement; he was certainly ill-advised to shift from his initial position; however, this indiscretion notwithstanding, the value of his testimony is not diminished even after excluding the improved version. He was the only person on God's earth who spotted three persons in front of the house smoothly entering therein after the door was opened on their knock. Subsequent events confirmed and vindicated his truthfulness. Qadeer Ahmad, appellant being son-in-law was received warmly and this is how the entry of three persons inside the house was without let or hindrance. Presence of dead bodies of Pervez Akhtar and Firdous Kausar in the drawing room irresistibly established that the visitors were seated in the drawing room; it is a traditional norm. Presence of dead bodies of Bushra, Ghazala and Zarmina Mehk in their respective bedrooms also indicates that entry of the visitors caused no alarm in the household; examined from this angle testimony of Mirza Muhammad Umer (PW-13) is duly corroborated by seizure of motorcycle (P-21) from the residence of Qadeer Ahmad, appellant.
Dead bodies of Pervez Akhtar and his wife Firdous Kausar were lying in the drawing room whereas Bushra, Ghazala and Zarmina Mehk were done to death in the separate bedrooms. It was a chilled winter night and presence of the elderly couple in the drawing room while the ladies in their bedrooms is suggestive of arrival of some welcome visitors; it was a usual evening for the unsuspecting family before calamity surprisingly struck them.
During spot inspection, the Investigating Officer secured an empty box (P-79) of a cell phone handset with IMEI No. 354176029652580; this apparently, innocuous piece of cardboard turned out as a formidable piece of evidence when Khurram Shahzad, appellant at the time of his arrest led to the recovery of the same handset with the same IMEI number. According to cell phone data (Ex.PTT) this handset was operated till 28-1-2010 with SIMs (Subscriber Identity Module) 0333- 5841554 and 0332-5801685 secured at the time of arrest; this awful piece of evidence generated through an automated system is not amenable to human interference and as such constitutes relevant facts within the contemplation of Article 46-A of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Reference to IMEI Number is ante-dated in point of time to arrest of Khurram Shahzad, appellant and recovery of handset as well as sims is conclusively established by a computer generated document. This piece of evidence is inexorably pointed on Khurram Shahzad appellant as it clinches his presence at the venue with Qadeer Ahmad, appellant.
Recovery of various articles from the appellants, in pursuance of their disclosures, cell phone data, bloodstained weapons, relationship of Qadeer Ahmad appellant with the family constitute formidable evidence within the contemplation of illustration (b) of Sub-article (2) of Article 24 of the Order ibid. Gold ornaments belong to the deceased family and it is confirmed by no other than Mehmood Ahmad (PW-12), who founded them. Defence Saving Certificates of Pervez Akhtar, deceased inescapably framed each appellant with the crime. Initial inference of robbery by the Investigating Officer under his investigative instinct stands confirmed by recovery of valuables comprising of gold ornaments, cell phone, laptop, cameras and treasury bills. Investigation is fully focused on the appellants; gloves and Churris recovered from them are found stained with blood of human origin. Injuries sustained by the deceased are consistent with the weapons recovered from the appellants. These various pieces of prosecution evidence are so naturally synchronized with one another; that every hypothesis of appellants' innocence stands excluded. This is best available evidence, in the circumstances of the case with no padding or overdoing. Law does not require any particular quantum of evidence to establish a fact and a single piece of evidence, in case found consistent with truth and probability, can sustain the charge. The referred to various pieces of evidence constitute sufficient basis to sustain the charge. Refusal by the learned Magistrate to record appellants' confessional statements on 3-2-2010 on the ground that they were seemingly under pressure is unfortunate to say the least, as without first examining them there was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to record such finding. The upshot of above discussion is that the prosecution successfully established its case, beyond a shadow of doubt, with the chain of circumstances, constituting an irresistible nexus inter-se the appellants and the deceased. Consequently, Crl. Appeal No. 16-J of 2011 fails. Given the enormity of crime, there is no mitigation which may even obliquely favour the appellants. Death sentence on five counts is confirmed. Crl. Revision No. 31 of 2011 being devoid of any force is dismissed. Murder Reference No. 25 of 2011 is answered in POSITIVE and death sentence is CONFIRMED.