MUHAMMAD TARIQ NADEEM, J. Through this single judgment, we intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No.228257 of 2018, filed by Khalid Mehmood, appellant against his convictions and sentences along with Murder Reference No.306 of 2018, transmitted by learned trial court for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of the appellant being originated from the same judgment dated 25-06-2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Forozewala, District Sheikhupura in a private complaint under sections 302, 334, 324, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. emanated from case FIR No.232 dated 22-04-2011 for offences under sections 302, 324, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sharaqpur Sharif, District Sheikupura whereby at the conclusion of the trial in the said private complaint, the learned trial court, convicted and sentenced the appellant Khalid Mehmood for committing murder of Mst. Sughran Bibi and injuring Mst. Hussain Bibi as under:- Under section 302(b), P.P.C.
Sentenced to death with the direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of Mst. Sughran Bibi (deceased), recoverable as arrears of land revenue or in default thereof to further undergo 06 months' S.I.
Under sections 324/34, P.P.C.
10 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.20,000/- or in default thereof to further undergo 03 months' S.I.
Under sections 334/34 and 337-R, P.P.C.
10 years' R.I. with Arsh, equal to one half of Diyat according to the notification of Govt. of Punjab for the year 2011.
Under sections 337-F(v), 34, P.P.C.
05 years' R.I. with daman of Rs.20,000/- Under sections 337-F(iii)/34, P.P.C.
03 years' R.I. with daman of Rs.10,000/-.
However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended in favour of convict.
2. The prosecution story as given in the judgment of the learned Trial Court reads as under:- "Murder crime incident of this case was originally reported to the Police Station Sharaqpur Sharif by the complainant Asghar Ali son of Hanif vide complaint Exh.PA stating therein that on 22.04.2011 at 1:00 p.m. his mother Mst. Hussain Bibi aged 60 years and sister Mst. Sughran Bibi aged 25/26 years, in connection with labour work of harvesting, were present in the wheat crop fields of Fareed son of Yaqoob in the area of village Salehpur; that the complainant also went there with the lunch for the said ladies; that in the meanwhile accused Khalid Mehmood (presently facing trial armed with pump-action rifle, Liaqat Ali armed with carbine .12-bore (since convicted), Shahbaz Ali armed with repeater rifle (since convicted) along with two unknown accused persons appeared there. The accused Liaqat Ali raised Lalkara that Sughran Bibi be taught lesson for obtaining divorce from accused Khalid; that the accused Khalid Mehmood with his pump-action rifle, with the intention to kill made straight fires hitting the shots on back and on right leg of Sughran Bibi; that accused Liaqat Ali with the Carbine .12-bore and the accused Shahbaz with his repeater weapon made straight fires hitting the shots on left arm, left flank and on different parts of the body of Mst.
Hussain Bibi; that the complainant rescued himself by lying in the nearby water-course; that the occurrence was also witnessed by Ahmad Ali son of Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Farid son of Yaqoob, the owners of the adjoining fields. The accused decamped from the scene of occurrence while waiving their weapons in the air; that the victims were shifted to the DHQ, Hospital Sheikhupura with the help of the PWs, where Mst. Sughran Bibi succumbed to the injuries. Mst.
Hussain Bibi due to critical condition was referred to Lahore for treatment. The motive behind the occurrence was that the deceased Mst. Sughran through the court obtained divorce from the accused Khalid Mehmood due to his vagabond behaviour/nature and on account of the said grudge and grouse the accessed persons Khalid Mehmood etc. upon abetment of Zulfiqar son of Yaqoob committed the occurrence. Hence, this case."
3. After recording cursory statements of the complainant and PWs the accused were summoned to face trial. Learned trial court, after observing all the pre-trial codal formalities, framed charge under sections 302, 324, 334, 148 and 149, P.P.C. on 13-03-2018 against the appellant to which he pleaded guilty and replied as under:- "...Yes. I pleaded guilty. Infact, I all alone went to the place of occurrence while armed with .12-bore double barrel rifle. The co-accused persons named in the charge sheet were not with me. My wife Mst. Sughran Bibi (deceased) was not having good character. She oftenly after quarrel used to go her parent's house and did not stop the said practice inspite of my forbidding. Her paramour also used to threaten me. One day prior to the occurrence, Shehbaz son of Murtaza, Zulfiqar son of Yaqoob and my brother Liaqat went to the house of parents of my wife Mst. Sughran Bibi (deceased) to effect reconciliation. They refused to send my wife to my home and insisted to obtain divorce. I was agreed to divorce Mst. Sughran Bibi but Shehbaz son of Murtaza asked me that now we should not divorce her. We would either kill Mst. Sughran Bibi or bring her back forcibly.
On the following day on the instigation of Shehbaz son of Murtaza, I went to the place of occurrence all alone while armed with .12-bore double barrel rifle, on a rented motorcycle and committed the whole occurrence alone. My one fire shot hit Mst. Sughran Bibi on her back and second shot on her legs near the knee joints. I made third fire on my mother-in-law Mst. Hussain Bibi hitting on her arm.
I confess my crime as the truth always comes on surface. I should accept what I did."
Inspite of convicting Khalid Mehmood (appellant) in the light of section 265-E(2), Cr.P.C., the learned trial Court decided to proceed with the appellant's trial. During the trial, the prosecution produced as many as 03-PWs and 09-CWs in support of its case against the appellant. The ocular account of the incident in issue had been provided by Mst. Hussain Bibi, injured (PW.1). Asghar Ali, complainant (PW.2) and Ahmed Ali (PW.3). Muhammad Ashraf, Patwari Halga appeared as CW.1, who prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.PC). Muhammad Saleem (CW.6) was the witness of the recovery of rifle pump-action .12 bore (P.1), vide seizure memo (Ex.CW.6/A) from appellant Javed Ahmad, SI (CW.8) and Safdar Ali, SI (CW.9), were the investigating officers of the case who stated about the various steps taken by them during investigation of this case. The medical evidence was furnished by Lady Doctor Sabiqa Attique, WMO (CW.7).
4. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. of the appellant was recorded. While answering to a question, "Why this case against you and why the PWs deposed against you", he replied as under:- "My wife Mst Sughran Bibi (deceased) was having immoral character. She was in a habit to quarrel with me and to go to her parent's house. Despite my forbidding, she did not stop the said practice.
She has also illicit relations with her paramour. Prior to the occurrence, my brother Liaqat along with Shahbaz and Zulfiqar went to the house of parents of my wife (deceased Sughran Bibi) for reconciliation. They refused reconciliation and insisted to obtain divorce. I was agreed to divorce Mst. Sughran Bibi but Shahbaz asked me not to divorce. On the day, of occurrence, upon asking of Shahbaz son of Murtaza, I went to the place of occurrence all alone while armed with .12-bore double barrel rifle and committed the whole occurrence alone; I accept and confess the crime..."
The appellant neither opted to appear is his own witness on oath as provided under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in disproof of the allegation levelled against him, nor produced defence evidence.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 25-06-2018 convicted and sentenced the appellant as narrated above, hence, this appeal and connected murder reference before us.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy Prosecutor General assiduously and also scanned the record minutely with their able assistance.
7. According to the prosecution version the occurrence in this case had taken place on 22-04-2011 at about 01:00 p.m. within the area of Salehpur situated at a distance of 10 kilometers away towards west from Police Station Sharaqpur Sharif while the machinery of criminal law was set into motion by Asghar Ali, complainant (PW.2) while presenting written complaint (Ex .PA) to Safdar Pervaiz, ST (CW.9) on the same day at 02:30 p.m. consequence whereof FIR (Ex.PE) was registered at the said police station at 03:25 p.m. Keeping in view the above circumstances of the case, we are quite confident to hold that the matter was reported to the police with sufficient promptitude which excluded the chance of deliberation or consultation on the part of the prosecution. Reliance is placed upon the case titled as "Asfandiyar v. The State and others" (2021 SCMR 2009).
8. It has vociferously been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that there is delay of 16 hours and 30 minutes in conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst.
Sughran Bibi (deceased). The prosecution was obliged to offer explanation for delay in holding autopsy. The supra mentioned argument has no legal worth because in this case one lady lost her life whereas another was seriously injured. The victims were shifted to the DHQ, Hospital Sheikhupura where Mst. Sughran Bibi succumbed to the injuries whereas Mst. Hussain Bibi due to critical condition was referred to Lahore for treatment. Even otherwise, it was the prime consideration of complainant to make efforts to save life of alive injured lady and not to firstly make attempt for autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Sughran Bibi (deceased). Occurrence took place in far-flung area, therefore, time must have been consumed in arranging and shifting them in the hospital and treatment of one injured lady. In a country where the medical facility cum availability of paramedics for the job assigned is not an easy task, the consumption of such a time seems to be quite reasonable hence, the prosecution evidence cannot be brushed aside on this score alone to extend the benefit of doubt as claimed. Reliance is placed upon the case law titled as "Muhammad Asif and another v. Mehboob Alam and others" (2020 SCMR 837).
9. To substantiate its case through direct evidence, the prosecution produced Mst. Hussain Bibi, injured (P W.1), Asghar Ali, complainant (PW.2) and Ahmad Ali (PW.3). It has been observed by us that Asghar Ali, complainant while appearing before the learned trial court as (PW.2) has reiterated the same facts and levelled the same allegation against the appellant in a mode and manner as he has mentioned in his statement (Ex.PA) before the police on the basis whereof FIR, (Ex.PE) was registered. His statement is fully corroborated by the statements of Mst. Hussain Bibi, injured (PW.1)
Ahmad Ali (PW.3). An the witnesses remained consistent upon the stance taken by them on the day of occurrence in their statements recorded under sections 154 and 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 respectively without any noticeable and material deviations. During the cross- examination, nothing beneficial to the appellant could be extracted. No material discrepancies or contradictions in their statements, could be hinted at by the learned counsel for the appellant during the arguments. Though, the PWs are closely related to the deceased yet their presence at the scene of occurrence is very much natural and they have furnished plausible explanation to be present along with deceased at the relevant time. The statements of the eye-witnesses mentioned above have been found trustworthy and confidence inspiring. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellant that the eye-witnesses, being related to the deceased person are biased witnesses but we may observe here that statements of related or interested witnesses can be made basis for conviction of the accused if the same inspire confidence as it is the intrinsic worth of the evidence that matters and not the source it emanates from. Mere relationship of eye- witness with deceased cannot render their evidence unreliable unless it is established that they had motive to entangle the appellant falsely. The defence badly failed to bring on record to remotely infer that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Even otherwise, it does not appeal to a prudent mind that close relatives will let off the real culprit of killing their near and dear one's and falsely implicate an innocent person. Reliance in this respect is placed on the esteemed judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Ghaffar Mahesar v. The State through P.G. Sindh and others" (2022 SCMR 1280).
We are satisfied that eye-witnesses were present at the place of occurrence at the time of incident and their claim of having seen the tragedy, stands proved from evidence available on record.
10. Ocular account produced by prosecution also find fully support from medical evidence as the ante-mortem injuries on the body of Mst. Sughran Bibi (deceased), attributed to the appellant are reflected in the post mortem report. Medical evidence furnished by Lady Doctor Sabiqa Attique (CW.7), who conducted autopsy of on the dead body of Mst. Sughran Bibi, proved post mortem report (Ex-CW7/B) and save opinion that injuries Nos.1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The said doctor also medically examined Mst. Hussain Bibi, injured (PW.1) and also proved her MLC (Ex.CW7/A). We have also noticed that the statement of said doctor made before the trial court was not cross-examined by the defence. Thus, the medical evidence provided full support to the ocular account in this case.
11. It is noteworthy that the crime in question is alleged to have taken place on 22-04-2011. The appellant was arrested on 12-05-2015. The appellant remained fugitive from law for a period of about four years. Long abscondence of appellant for four years is a strong piece of corroborative evidence against him. The prosecution complied with all the legal formalities to declare him proclaimed offender. Besides other evidence, on record, the evidence of abscondence being strong corroborative evidence has supported the case of prosecution about his implication in the commission of crime. Reliance is placed upon the case law titled as "Haroon Rasheed and 6 others v. The State and another" (2005 SCMR 1568).
12. As far as evidence of recovery of gun .12 bore pump action (P.1) at the instance of the appellant and positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore (Ex.CA) is concerned, we have noticed that empties of .12 bore gun were secured from the place of occurrence on 22-04-2011, which were deposited in Forensic Science Laboratory on 02-06-2015. Subsequently, after the arrest of the appellant/accused gun .12 bore pump action (P.1) was recovered at the instance of appellant on 24-05-2015 and said pistol (P.1) was deposited to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory.
According to the report (Ex.CA), the said empty was identified as having been fired from .12 bore gun (P.1). Moreover, the defence has not denied the supra mentioned recovery. Thus, the recovery also provides sufficient support to the Ocular account.
13. So far as motive part of the occurrence is concerned, we have observed that the motive behind the occurrence was that the deceased Mst. Sughran Bibi obtained divorce from the accused Khalid Mehmood through the court, due to his bad character and on account of the said grudge and grouse the accused persons Khalid Mehmood etc. committed the occurrence. The motive is furnished in the FIR (Ex.PE) as well as in the statements of Asghar Ali, complainant (PW.2) and Ahmad Ali (PW.3). The motive has been established satisfactorily. The statements of supra mentioned PWs on the point of motive stands un-rebutted. Even the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. admitted the motive and murder of his divorcee, therefore, the prosecution successfully proved motive part of the occurrence.
14. Coming to the admission of Khalid Mehmood, appellant that: he had committed the occurrence, in his reply to the charge framed by the learned trial Court on 13-03-2018, he narrated the whole story by admitting the commission of present occurrence. Moreover, the appellant was arrested in this case on 13-05-2015 after the period of four years and charge was framed on 13-03-2018 after the lapse of almost 02 years and 10 months. Thereafter, case against the appellant remained pending for recording evidence and other proceedings for a period of approximately two months.
After the completion of prosecution evidence statement of appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. was recorded and on this stage he again confessed his guilt with his free will and consent, without coercion and duress. In this way, we are quite confident to hold that the admission of Khalid Mehmood, appellant regarding commission of present occurrence at different stages has supported the evidence of prosecution. Reliance is placed upon the cases titled as "Nasir Mehmood and another v. The State" (2015 SCMR 423) and "Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri v.
The State and others"(PLD 2015 SC 17). Further reference can also be made to the case titled as "Imran Ali v. The State" (2018 SCMR 1372), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed in paragraph No.4 of the judgment as under:- "4. As regards the sentences passed by the learned trial court against the petitioner which sentences had subsequently been upheld and confirmed by the High Court we may observe that the crimes committed by the petitioner were absolutely horrendous and barbaric and the same had been committed with a minor and innocent girl aged about 7/8 years. The petitioner had not only deceitfully kidnapped her but had also brutalized her by committing sodomy and rape with her and had then ultimately killed her mercilessly. In his pleading guilty to the charge as well as in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner had admitted committing similar offences with eight other minor victims and in that backdrop the petitioner did not deserve any sympathy in the matter of his sentences...."
15. For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that prosecution by producing cogent, concrete, consistent and trust worthy evidence able to establish that appellant, Khalid Mehmood has committed brutal and merciless murder of his divorcee Mst. Sughran Bibi and caused injuries to Mst. Hussain Bibi (PW.1). Therefore, charge under section 302(b) of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for Qatl-i-amd of Mst. Sughran Bibi (deceased) and under sections 324, 334, 337-F(v), 337-F(iii), 34, P.P.C. is proved against the appellant. We, therefore, uphold his conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. As regards the sentence, learned defence counsel though prayed for reduction of sentence yet has not been able to plead any mitigating circumstance for imposing the lesser penalty of life imprisonment. The appellant (Khalid Mehmood) has committed a cruel and wanton act by the taking the life of an innocent lady and causing injuries to another lady just to satisfy his grudge. In his reply to a question at the time of framing of charge "Do you plead guilty to the charge" as well as his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in response to question "Why this case registered against you and why the PWs deposed against you", the appellant has admitted the commission of the murder of Mst. Sughran Bibi (deceased) as well as causing injuries to Mst. Hussain Bibi, injured (PW.1) and in that backdrop, he (appellant) did not deserve any sympathy in the matter of his sentences. We, therefore, see no extenuating or mitigating circumstances for altering the death sentence rather we are convinced that only the sentence of death would meet the ends of justice.
16. For the foregoing reasons. Criminal Appeal No. 228257 of 2018 filed by Khalid Mehmood, appellant is dismissed, his conviction for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. is upheld and the sentence of death as well as the order of payment of compensation passed against him by the learned trial court is maintained.
17. The other sentences awarded to the appellant are also upheld, however, the sentences shall run concurrently and benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall also be extended to him.
18. As the sentence of death passed by the learned trial court against Khalid Mehmood, appellant has been confirmed by us, therefore, Murder Reference No. 306 of 2016 is hereby answered in the affirmative.