ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 892 of 2012 For the reasons mentioned in this miscellaneous application the same is allowed and the delay in filing of Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2013 is condoned. Disposed of.
Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2013
2. Zahid Iqbal appellant had allegedly entered a house in Chak No.214/RB in the area of Police Station Saddar, Faisalabad posing himself to be a cable repairman and had then committed the murder of three inmates of that house namely Inayat Ali Tahir, Mst. Rehana Bibi and Hans at about 10.15 a.m. on 09.05.2004. On the basis of the said allegations the appellant was booked in case FIR No. 526 registered at the above mentioned Police Station on the same day and after a regular trial he was convicted by the trial court on three counts of the offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. and was sentenced to death on each count and to pay compensation besides having been convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 392, P.P.C. An appeal filed by the appellant against his convictions and sentences failed to the extent of his convictions and sentences for the offences under section 302(b), P.P.C. which were upheld and confirmed but his appeal succeeded to the extent of his conviction and sentence for the offence under section 392, P.P.C. which were set aside by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 03.04.2013.
3.Leave to appeal had been granted in this case in order to reappraise the evidence and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we have perused the record of the case from cover to cover and have reassessed the evidence brought on the record.
4. The case in hand is a case of triple murder in which a husband, 1-is wife and their minor son aged about 8/9 years were mercilessly done to death at a time when they were peacefully present in their own house. The occurrence had taken place in daylight and an FIR in respect of the same had been lodged with sufficient promptitude wherein it had been mentioned that the sole perpetrator of the alleged offences had remained unknown but some description of the culprit had been recorded in the FIR. After the appellant's arrest in connection with this case he was put to a test identification parade in which the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution, i.e. Tahir Munir Ahmed complainant (PW-8) and Muhammad Shahid (PW9) had correctly identified the appellant with reference to the different roles played by him during the occurrence in issue. The record of the case shows that not only PW8 and PW9 had correctly identified the appellant in the test identification parade but even two minor inmates of the house of occurrence had also identified the appellant as the one who had committed the murders in issue. The above mentioned eye- witnesses had also correctly identified the appellant before the trial court during the trial. The ocular account furnished by the above mentioned eye-witnesses had received full support from the medical evidence and sufficient corroboration from recovery of a firearm from the appellant's custody which firearm had matched with four crime-empties secured from the place of occurrence, as confirmed by a positive report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory. The eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in a case of this nature, they had made consistent statements and despite being chance witnesses they had advanced reasons for their availability at the scene of the crime at the relevant time which reasons were neither unbelievable nor extraordinary. It goes without saying that visiting a brother or a cousin on a Sunday is a reason which is not out of the ordinary. Both the courts below had assessed and evaluated the evidence in some detail and had then concurred in their conclusion regarding guilt of the appellant having been established beyond reasonable doubt and upon our own independent evaluation of the evidence we have not been able to take a view of the matter different from that concurrently taken by the courts below. The appellant had demonstrated extreme barbarity by not only using a pistol but also a pair of scissors so as to cause injuries to three inmates of the house of occurrence. Three innocent persons including a lady and a child had callously been murdered by the appellant and, thus, he deserved no sympathy in the matter of his sentence. The usual wages of a crime of murder is death and in the peculiar circumstances of this case the appellant deserves no less. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.