ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant criminal appeals filed under Section 417 Cr.P.C, the complainant as well as the State have assailed the impugned judgment dated 28-5-2018, handed down by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent from the charge under Section 302 P .P.C.
1. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that on 18.8.2015 at 5 a.m the present respondent/accused appeared at Police Station Nagar-1 and verbally reported that he has committe d murder of deceased Mazhar Hussain son of Yousuf Ali Resident of Sumayar Nagar and his own real sister Mst: Haseena Khatoon finding them in compromising position in his home. The accused/respondent has further disclos ed in the FIR that Nikah of Mst: Haseena Khatoon was solemnized with one Mohammad Iqbal five years prior to occurrence and out of said wedlock one baby girl was born. The deceased Mst: Haseena Khatoon was residing in the house of accused/respondent as rukhasati had yet not taken place and five days prior to occurrence the accused got suspicion about the moral credentials of his deceased sister and the accused had reprimanded/scolded her deceased sister and he had informed her husband regarding suspicious calls and messages being exchanged by her sister . On 18-2-2015 at night time the accused/respondent was present on the roof top of his house, when he saw a man entering in the room of his sister . Accordingly the accused went to the room of his deceased sister and knocked at the door and after five/six minutes she opened the door of her room. The accused had taken a .30 bore pistol and axe with him while going in to the room of his deceased sister Mst: Haseena Khatoon but the accused could not see the deceased Mazhar Hussain in the room of deceased Mst. Haseena Khatoon. The accused lifted the bedding lying on the corner of the room and discovered Mazhar Hussain deceased who was hiding there. The accused opened fires on the deceased Mazhar Hussain with 30 bore pistol and Mazhar Hussain fell on the ground.
The accused also attempted to open fire on his sister but the fire could not be opened due to some technical fault in the pistol therefore, the accused took the axe and hit her with the said axe repeatedly and then hit Mazhar Hussain with axe also and after killing both the deceased, the accused came to police station Nagar-1 and surrended himself before the police. On receipt of this information the police registered a criminal case Under Section 302 P .P.C. vide FIR No.1 1/2015 at police station Nagar-1 on the verbal report of the accused/respondent.
2. After lodging formal FIR Exh.PW -14/A against the present respondent/accused the SHO Police station Nagar- 1/PW -14 namely Javed Ali IP started investigation in this case and proceeded to the place of occurrence along with the accused/respondent and some other notables of the area. He prepared site plan Exh. PW-14/B, took in possession dead body of deceased Haseena Khatoon in presence of witnesses vide seizure memo Exh. PW-14/C and dead body of deceased Mazhar Hussain vide seizure memo Exh PW-14/D.Th e above named I.O. also took in his possession weapon of offence i.e .30 bore pistol and hatchet/axe through recovery memo Exh. PW-14/E, a live and spent bullet of .30 bore pistol through seizure memo Exh PW-14/F , in presence of marginal witnesses, the cell phone of the deceased Mst: Haseena through memo Exh.PW -14/G and cell phone of deceased Mazahar Hussain through memo Exh. PW-14/C. He prepared inquest report of both the deceased. Since the crime weapon .30 bore pistol was found to be unlicensed therefore, he sent a murasila for lodging of another FIR and accordingly another FIR under section 13 Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 was registered against the accused/respondent. He recorded statements of PWs under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He requested the SP Nagar through letters Exh PW-14/S and Exh PW-14/T , Exh PW-14/U and Exh PW-14/V for sending weapon of offence to the Arms expert and other incriminating articles to the chemical exam iner, he prepared incomplete challan and complete challan Exh PW-4/X. and Exh PW -14/A, respectively and submitted the same in the court of competent jurisdiction.
3. On receipt of challan the learned trial Court issued notices to the accused /respondent and State. On appearance of parties the learned trial court supplied relevant copies of statements of PWs recorded under Section 161 Cr .P.C and copies of relevant documents to the accused free of cost as required under Section 265(C) Cr .P.C.
4. On 05-11-2015, the learned trial court framed charge against the accused/respondent under Section 302 P.P.C., to which the accused pleaded not guilty and opted to contest the case. Accordingly the learned trial court summoned the PWs.
5. In order to prove it case the prosecution produced/ examined 16 PWs in the trial court. After production of 16 PWs in the trial court the learned District Public Prosecutor closed prosecution evidence vide his closing statement dated 20-12-2016. Thereafter the learned trial court examined the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C on 16-6-2017.
The accused/respondent in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C denied the allegation of murder of both the deceased and professed his innocence, however , the accused/responde nt has neither got recorded his statement on oath under Section 340(2) Cr .P.C nor produced any evidence in his defence.
6. On conclusion of trial the learned trial court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has acquitted the accused/respondent vide the impugned judgment dated 28-5-2018, hence these appeals.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/complainant contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside . The learned counsel for the complainant and Dy.A.G further argued that the FIR was lodged on the verbal report of the accused/respondent as the accused/respondent himself has admitted before the police that he has committed murder of both the deceased in his house. The learned counsel for the complainant and the Deputy Advocate General further argued that weapons of offence have been recovered by the police on the pointation of the accused from the house of accused and report of arms expert is also positive which support prosecution version. The learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and Dy. A.G further argued that medico legal report also support prosecution version of the occurrence. Concluding their arguments the learned Dy.A.G and Mr. Manzoor Huss ain counsel for the complainant argued that prosecution has successfully proved it case against the responden t/accused by adducing reliable evidence in the trial court and the learned trial court has illegally and wrongly acquitted the accused/respondent, therefore, by accepting these criminal appeals the accused/respondent may be convicted under Section 302 P.P.C. and he be awarded capital punishment.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/accused controverted the arguments advanced by the learned Dy. A.G and counsel for the complainant by contending that confession of respondent/accused before the police is not admissible in evidence as such extra confessional statement of an accused incorporated in the first information report cannot be used against him. The learned counsel for the accused/respondent further argued that weapons of offence have been recover ed in absence of the respondent as admitted by PW-16 Mohammad Hussain son of Khudayar in his cross examination. The learned counsel for the accused/respondent further argued that except recovery of weapon of offence and extra confessional statement of accused before the police, the prosecution has failed to adduce any direct evidence against the accused/respondent in the trial court, hence the prosecution has failed to prove it case against the accused/respondent and the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused vide the impugned judgment under appeals which may be maintained.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
10. From perusal of record it transpires that on 18-8-2015 at 01:30 hours the accused/respondent namely Kausar Hussain on the suspicion of illicit relations between both the deceased namely Mst: Haseena Khatoon real sister of the respondent/accused and Mazahar Hussain son of Malik Shah resident of Sumayar Nagar intentionally caused the death of the above named both deceased by opening fires with .30 bore pistol and causing injuries with hatchet in his house situated at the Thapkhan Summayar Nagr-1. Immediately after committing murder of the above named both the deceased the accused/respondent rushed to police station Nagar-1 and has narrated the occurrence in detail voluntarily , without any pressure and influence the details of which were incorporated in the FIR while chalking FIR by the then SHO Police Station Nagir-1, hence the accused/respondent has admitted that he has committed brutal murder of the both the deceased and the accused/respondent cannot be permitted to take law in to his own hand in the name of Ghairat/honor , when other re-courses were available to him.
11. It is well settled principle of law that the initial report made/lodged by the accused before the police as complainant in the case shall be admissible against him as his admission.
12. In this connection wisdom is drawn from the judgments, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in PLD 1963 SC 156 and PLD 1975 SC-607 . Moreover , question of fact accepted to be true need not to be proved in terms of Article 18 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, in this respect reliance can be placed on the reported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan 2002 SCMR 1568 .
13. The stance of the accused immediately after the occurance is further corroborated by recovery of weapons of offence i.e .30 bore pistol and an axe from the house of the accused/respondent and positive reports of National Forensic Science Agency (five Arms Section) Exh. PW-14/X and Punjab Foren sic Science Agency DNA and Serology Analysis report Exh PW -14/Z.
14. Furthermore, Medico Legal reports/autopsy reports of dead bodies of the both the deceases Exh PW-4/C and Exh PW-5/A also support prosecution's version of the occurrence. Thus the prosecution has proved it case against the accused/respondent beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.
15. It is the prosecution's case itself that the respondent/accused suspected of illicit relations of his sister Mst: Haseena Khatoon deceased with the deceased Mazhar Hussain and for this reason he has committed the murder of both the deceased. This version also finds support that the accused/respondent has committed murder in the room of his deceased sister Mst: Haseena Khatoon, thus after having gone through the entire evidence we have come to the conclusion that the accused/respondent committed murder of both the deceased in a heat of passion and after losing self control. Therefore, accused/respondent deserve to be dealt with leniently , as there was no justification available to the deceased to be present in the house of the accused in such odd hours of night. As sufficient time was available to the accused to hand over the accused to the law enforcing agencies, who he was spotted in the room of the sister of the accused and was empty handed.
16. In view of above discussion, both these criminal appeals filed by the complainant and the state are allowed.
Consequently the respondent/accused namely Kousar Hussain is convicted cinder Section 302(c) P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years on two accounts keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case in hand. The sentences award ed to the respondent/convict shall run concurrently and benefit of section 382(B) Cr .P.C is also extended in favour of the above named convict.
17. Both the Appeals are allowed and disposed of in the above terms. Certified true copy of this judgment be placed on criminal appeal No.43/2018.
18. The accused is present in the Court. He is taken into custody and committed to judicial lock up to undergo the sentence awarded to him. Registrar Chief Court is directed to issue committal order of the accused accordingly .