LEHRASAP KHAN, J.-The appellant Muhammad Siddique alias Kakki aged 30 years was tried by a learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kasur, for committing the murder of Mst. Zainab Bibi and Mohammad Salim on 5-8-74 at sunset time at the tube-well of Mohammad Amin (P. W. 8) within the area of village Dhing Shah. Two co-accused namely, Muhammad Iqbal aged 31 years and Mohammad Nawaz aged 28 years (since acquitted), were also tried alongwith the appellant for hatching a conspiracy with the appellant on 4-8-74 at about peshiwela at the Bus Stand of Dhing Shah and for instigating him to murder Mst. Zainab Bibi and Mohammad Salim in consequence whereof he actually murdered the said two deceased. Thus the appellant was tried for an offence punishable under section 302, P. P. C. On two counts while Mohammad Iqbal and Mohammad Nawaz co-accused were tried for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 109, P.
P. C.
2. The learned trial Judge vide his judgment dated 22-11-1978 convicted the appellant on the charge of murder of Mst. Zainab Bibi and Mohammad Salim under section 302, P.P.C. On two counts and sentenced him to death and to a fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default-to suffer R. I. For 6 months on each count. It was directed that the fine, if recovered should be paid to heirs of the deceased. The two co-accused, viz. Mohammad Iqbal and Mohammad Nawaz were, however, acquitted of the charge of conspiracy punishable under section 302/109, P. P. C.
3. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence through the present appeal. The matter is also before us under section 374, Cr. P. C. For having been referred to seek confirmation of the sentence of death passed against the appellant. Muhammad Amin complainant has also filed criminal Revision challenging the acquittal of the co-accused namely, Mohammad Iqbal and Mohammad Nawaz and has prayed that they be awarded punishment in accordance with law.
4. All the three matters, i.e. Appeal, Reference and Criminal Revision shall be disposed of by this judgment.
5. The prosecution version as transpires from the contents of the F. I. R. Ex. P. H. Briefly stated, is that Ismail son of Nizam Din, the father-in-law of Mohammad Amin (P. W. 8) the first informant, obtained, on lease 19 Acres of land situated in village Dhing Shah belonging to Inam Ullah and Sana Ullah, etc. Of Lahore, at the rite of Rs. 70 per Acre per annum, about 20 years ago. The said Ismail installed a tube-well in that land as well. Ismail died about 5 years prior to the present occurrence and the land was now being cultivated by Mohammad Amin aforesaid and Amanat Ali son of Ismail deceased. The lease period had to expire after about a year of the occurrence but Abdur Rab, the brother-in-law and the Manager of the owners of the land namely Inam Ullah, etc. Leased the land to Mohammad Nawaz, and Muhammad Iqbal co-accused, sons of Mohammad Din of village Dhing Shah at the rate of Rs. 125 per acre per annum. The said Mohammad Nawaz and Mohammad lqbal got the ejectment orders passed against Mohammad Amin and Amanat Ali but they preferred an appeal before the A. C., Kasur and obtained a stay order as their lease period had to expire after about a year and the premature orders of ejectment were passed against them. Mohammad Nawaz and Mohammad Iqbal, the co-accused, harboured grudge against Mohammad Amin and Amanat Ali on account of their inability not to obtain possession of the land in question from them. They (co-accused) were adamant in obtaining possession of the land.
On 5-F-74 at about sunset time Mohammad Amin, his mother-in-law Zainab Bibi aged about 60/65 years, and his son Mohammad Salim, a young lady of 16/17 years of age were present at their tube-well in the afore--said land. Mohammad Amin went to a nearby tube-well belonging to Mohammad Anwar son of Barkat All at a distance of about 3 acres for obtaining some oil from that tube-well. Yaqoob son of Bakhsha and Ibrahim (P. W. 9), besides Mohammad Anwar were present at the tube-well of Mohammad Anwar. As soon as Mohammad Amin reached the tube-well of Mohammad Anwar, he heard alarm being raised by his son Mohammad Salim saying Siddique was killing his grandmother. On hearing alarm Mohammad Amin and Mohammad Anwar, etc. Became attentive and saw that Siddique appellant was holding Zainab Bibi deceased from her throat while Salim deceased was struggling to get his grandmother released. Mohammad Amin, Yaqoob and Ibrahim, etc. Ran towards the tube-well of Mohammad Amin, but before their arrival and within their sight Siddique appellant fell Mst. Zainab Bibi deceased to the ground and caused a Kassi blow on her head. Thereafter he dealt repeated Kassi blows to Muhammad Salim deceased on his head and neck. Mohammad Salim also fell down. Mohammad Siddique appellant made good his escape before he could be overpowered by Mohammad Amin and others. Mohammad Amin and his companions found that Zainab Bibi and Mohammad Salim had already expired.
Mohammad Siddique appellant had been in the service of Mohammad Amin till some time prior to the occurrence.
On 4-8-1974, i.e. a day prior to the occurrence, Mohammad Nawaz and Mohammad lqbal co- accused were present in the afternoon at Bus Stand, Dhing Shah alongwith Mohammad Siddique appellant. Jan Mohammad (P. W. 7) and Manna (not produced) also happened to be present at the Bus Stand 1qbal and Nawaz instigated Mohammad Siddique appellant to murder Zainab Bibi and Mohammad Salim deceased as both the deceased used to be present at the tube-well day and night and were thus instrumental in not delivering possession of the land to 1qbal and Nawaz.
Iqbal and Nawaz settled with Mohammad Siddique appellant that they would pay Rs. 1,000 to him and in turn he would murder the two deceased.
6. After the occurrence Mohammad Amin deputed Yaqoob and Ibrahim to guard the dead bodies of Mst. Zainab and Salim while he himself went to the Police Station, Khudian at a distance of 5 miles accompanied by Rahim Khan Lambardar, Sardar Mohammad and Shah Mohammad residents of Dhing Shah. He lodged the F. I. R. Exh. P. H. At the Police Station on 5-8-74 at 10-15 p. m.
The F. I. R. Was recorded by Noor Ahmad, the then S. H. O., Police Station Khudian.
7. After recording the F. I. R. Noor Ahmad S. I. (P. W. 10) proceeded to the spot. He prepared the Injury Statements Ex. P. M. And P. N. In respect of Salim deceased and Zainab deceased respectively. He also prepared Inquest Reports Exh. P. K. And Exh. P. L. In respect of Salim and Zainab deceased respectively. He secured the blood-stained earth from the place where the dead body of Salim deceased was lying and sealed the same into a parcel vide memo. Exh. P. D. He then secured blood-stained earth from the place where the dead body of Mst. Zainab deceased was lying vide memo. Ex. P. E. And sealed the same into a parcel. On 6-8-74, he arrested Siddique appellant and secured blood-stained Kassi P. 1 from his possession vide recovery memo. Exh. P. F. He also secured the blood-stained shirt P. 2 from the appellant which he was wearing at the time of his arrest. The shirt was secured vide memo. Exh. P.G. He despatched the dead bodies for post-mortem examination to the mortuary. He got the site plans Exh. P. C. And P. C. I prepared by Feroze Din Patwari (P. W. 5). Notes in red ink on these plans are in the hand of Noor Ahmad S. I. He recorded the statements of witnesses, completed the investigation and after arresting Iqbal and Nawaz co- accused submitted the challan.
8. Dr. Zafar Iqbal, the then Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Kasur, (P. W. 1) conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Mohammad Salim deceased on 6-8-74 at 2-00 p. m. And noticed 6 cut wounds on his body. In the opinion of the doctor Salim deceased died of massive haemorrhage and shock resulting from injury No. 4 to neck vessels which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. All injuries were anti-mortem and caused by sharp-edged weapon. Death occurred immediately.
9. On the same day at 3-30 p.m. Dr. Zafar Iqbal performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Zainab Bibi deceased. He noticed a lacerated wound 1------ x -- into scalp deep on the right mastoid region of head and 6 contusions. In the opinion of the doctor Mst. Zainab Bibi died of asphixia and shock due to throttling resulting from injury No. 2. All injuries were anti-mortem and caused by blunt weapon. Death occurred immediately. Post-mortem report in case of Mohammad Salim is Exh. P. A. While diagram indicating the location of injuries are Exhs. P. A. I and P. A.
2. In case of Mst. Zainab Bibi, the post-mortem report is Exh. P. B. And dia--grams giving out pictorial representation are Exh. PB/1 and PB/2.
10. On 20-8-74 on the application of Noor Ahmad S. I., Mr. Bashir Ahmad Dogar (P.W. 11), the then M.I.C. Kasur, sent for Mohammad Siddique appellant from the Jail and recorded his confessional statement Exh. P. R. Under section 164, Cr. P. C.
11. As already noticed the learned trial Judge has not believed the prosecution version of conspiracy and has accordingly acquitted the two co-accused namely, Iqbal and Nawaz.
Regarding conspiracy there is solitary testimony of Jan Mohammad (P. W. 7) who was deposed that a day prior to the occurrence, this witness saw Iqbal: and Nawaz, the acquitted co-accessed, and also Siddique appellant at Bus Stand Dhing Shah at peshiwela. Iqbal and Nawaz asked Siddique appellant that he should murder Mst. Zainab and Salim and that they would pay Rs. 1,000 to him as reward for the same. Iqbal and Nawaz had further said that Mil. Zainab and Salim did not allow them to take possession of land, therefore, they should be murdered by Siddique appellant.
According to Jan Mohammad, one Manna was also present at that time. The said Manna, however, has not been examined to support Jan Mohammad. It is not believable that Iqbal and Nawaz co- accused would conspire with the appellant and instigate him to murder Mst. Zainab and Salim at a thoroughfare like Bus Stand, Dhing Shah, in the presence of Jan Mohammad and his companion Manna who were admittedly strangers qua them. Jan Mohammad has admitted that Nawaz and Siddique were not his friends. His solitary statement to prove the conspiracy has been rightly disbelieved by learned trial Judge.
12. As regards the appellant, the prosecution case against him is mainly based on ocular evidence, confession and recoveries.
13. We take up confession first of all. The confessional statement Exh. P. R. Of the appellant has been recorded by Mr. Bashir Ahmad Dogar, the then M. I. C. Kasur (P. W. 11) on 20-8-74. This statement has been recorded on oath although law does not permit to record the statement of an accused person on oath. The contents of Exh. P. R. Indicate that the account of the occurrence given in this statement by the appellant is contradictory to what is the prosecution version. In the circumstances this confessional statement cannot be utilized as a corroborative piece of evidence.
14. The ocular evidence against the appellant is based on the testimonies of Mohammad Amin (P.
W. 8) and Ibrahim (P. W. 9). Muhammad Amin no doubt is father of Salim deceased and son-in-law of Mst. Zainab deceased but his presence at the time of occurrence in the vicinity of his tube-well is quite natural and probable. He had no motive to falsely involve the appellant in a murder case. It has come on the record that some time prior to the occurrence the appellant had been in his service and had been challaned in proceedings under section 107/151, Cr. P. C. As a partyman of Mohammad Amin against Iqbal and Nawaz. Mohammad Amin stood surety for him and got him released. Mohammad Ibrahim, the other eye-witness, is an unconnected person. He too had no animosity whatsoever against the appellant and had thus no motive to falsely involve the appellant in the murder case. The ocular evidence led at the trial against the appellant, in the circumstances, inspires confidence and cannot be brushed aside for any genuine reason.
15. The testimonies of eye-witnesses find corroboration from the recoveries, i.e. Recovery of blo-4- stained Kassi Exh. P.I. The weapon of offence, recovered from the accused at the time of his arrest vide memo. Exh. P.F. And of blood-stained shirt P. 2 which he was wearing at that time, The shirt was recovered vide memo: Exh. P. J. The result in respect of Kasai and shirt as per reports of Chemical Examiner and Serologist is positive. These recoveries have been witnessed by Rahim Khan Lambardar of village Dhing Shah. His independence has not been challenged. The other recovery witness is Noor Ahmad (P. W. 10) the Investigating Officer.
16. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that prosecution has failed to show any motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of Zainab and Salim deceased. The prosecution case, of course, is that the appellant had murdered both the deceased at the instigation of Iqbal and Nawaz, the two co-accused. The version of conspiracy, no doubt, has not been believed by the learned trial Judge. It is, however not obligatory for the prosecution to allege a motive in every murder case. It has been suggested to Mohammad Amin (P. W. 8) in tae cross-examination c that he had promised the hand of his daughter Jamila to the appellant and that Mst. Zainab deceased opposed this marriage and, therefore, he backed out from his promise. The suggestion no doubt has been repudiated by Muhammad Amin. May be that the appellant had this grudge in his mind and he committed the murder of Mst. Zainab and Salim deceased. This is an occurrence which took place at about sunset time involving a single accused. In such circumstances, there are remote chances of substitution. If Muhammad Amin had to substitute the real culprit he would have in all probabilities substituted the acquitted c6-accused, his proven enemies, instead of the appellant.
17. In the above circumstances, the learned trial Judge has rightly concluded that from the ocular evidence which finds corroboration from recoveries, the charge has been fully brought home to the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. He has brutally murdered two innocent persons in a gruesome manner. No exception can, therefore, be taken to the sentence of death to him.
18. In this view of the matter, we uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant and dismiss his appeal. We also dismiss the Revision Petition.