' SARDAR MUHAMMAD, J.-Appellant Miran Bakhsh, aged 46 years, has filed Criminal Appeal No, 141 of 1980, against the order, dated 7-1-1980 of Additional Sessions Judge, Attock, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 302, P. P. C. On two counts for having committed the murder of Ghazan Khan and Nur Hussain and sentenced him to death. He has also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs, 5,000 in default to suffer three years' R. I. Whole of the fine, on recorvery, has been directed to be paid in equal shares to the heirs of the two deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has sent up the case for confirmation of death sentence. Mohammad Husain complainant has filed Criminal Revision No, 440 of 1980, for enhancement of the amount of compensation directed to be paid by Miran Bakhsh appellant. The complainant has filed a separate revision petition (Cr. R. 3 of 1981) against the acquitted accused Muhammad Iqbal and has prayed for remanding the case for retrial. Since the murder reference, criminal appeal and both the revisions arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of by one order.
2. F. I. R. (Exh. P. E./I) was recorded at Police Station Talagang by Muhammad Anwar, H. C. (P. W. 4), at 1-45 p.m. On 26-5-1979, on receipt of statement (Exh. P. E.) of Muhammad Hussain (P. W. 13), recorded by Amir Khan, S.I. (P. W. 16) at 2-30 p.m. The same day, in Civil Hospital, Talagang.
Muhammad Hussain P. W. Has briefly stated that he along-with deceased Ghazan Khan and Nur Hussain was preparing Banna in the fields in the area of village Jhatla. At about 2-30 p.m., Miran Bakhsh appellant armed with a rifle, Muhammad Iqbal (acquitted accused) armed with a Kulhari came from the side of village Abadi. Both of them raised lalkara that they will take the possession of the land today. Miran Baksh fired two shots' from his rifle on Ghazan Khan, a bullet hit Ghazan Khan on his head and he fell down. Nur Hussain tried to run away towards West, Miran Bakhsh fired two rifle shots a bullet ht him on his head, he fell down at a distance of a few paces, Muhammad Iqbal (acquitted accused) gave a Kulhari blow on his right upper arm, whereafter the appellant and the acquitted accused both gave injuries to Nur Husain with Kulhari and rifle. Ghazan Khan died on the spot while Nur Hussain was brought in an unconscious condition in the hospital at Talagang. According to the complainant, the occurrence was seen by him, Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Bakhsh P. Ws.
' Regarding motive for the occurrence, he has stated that Miran Bakhsh was cultivating 50 Kanals of evacuee land, which was purchased by one Shah Nawaz without the permission of Miran Bakhsh 4/5 years prior to the occurrence and two years before the occurrence had taken possession from him. The land was then given for cultivation by said Shah Nawaz to Ghazan Khan and Nur Hussain.
According to him, it was for this reason that the appellant and Muhammad lqbal (acquitted accused) had attacked Ghazan Khan and Nur Hussain.
3. After recording the statement of the complainant, the Sub-Inspector sent Nur Hussain to Civil Hospital, Pindingheb, after his injury statement (Exh. P.S.) was prepared, as doctor of Talagang Hospital was not available. The Sub-Inspector reached the spot, sent the dead body of Ghazan Khan to the mortuary for post-mortem examination after preparing inquest report (Exh. P. U.) and the injury statement (Exh. P. T.). Apart from the blood-stained earth and a pair of Chappal (P. 8/1-2) of the deceased, the S. I. Took into possession foresight of rifle (P. 7), vide memo. Exh. P. M. From the spot, Two empty cartridges (P. 14/1-2) were also found lying on the spot, which were taken into possession, vide memo. Exh. P. J. A pair of boot (P. 104-2) of Ghazan Khan were also taken into possession from the spot, vide memo. Exli. P.P.
' Nur Hussain died on his way to Civil Hospital, Pindigheb. Muhammad Akram A. S. I. (P. W. 8), on receipt of information reached Pindigheb hospital and after preparing inquest report (Exh. P. H.), despatched the dead body for post-mortem examination.
4. The post-mortem examination of both the deceased was conducted by Dr. Muhammad Afzal (P.
W. 1) on 27-5-1979. On the dead body of Ghazan Khan, Dr. Muhammad Afzal observed one wound of entrance on the right temporal bone about 3 c.m. Lateral to right eye and one exit wound on left temporal side including left eye and left side of forehead, which had fractured right temporal and orbital bone and frontal bone due to injury No, 1., fracture of left temporal orbital frontal bone as a whole and left perietal bone, was due to injury No, 2.
' According to his opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries Nos. 1 and 2, which were caused by fire-arm.
' On the dead body of Nur Hussain, the doctor noted nine injuries. According to his opinion injuries Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 were caused by fire-arm injuries Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were caused by a blunt weapon.
' According to his opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of injuries Nos. 6 and 7, which have been described as under :-
(6) Lacerated wound, 2 cm. x 3/4 cm. x skull deep with inverted edges 4 cm above to left ear on left perietal bone. Fracture of left perietal bone.
(7) Lacerated wound, 3 cm. x 1 cm. On back of head on occipital bone 2 cm. Behind and backward to injury No,
6. It has inverted edges. There is fracture of occipital bone.
5. Appellant Miran Bakhsh was arrested on 3-6-1979. Rifle (P. 11) and cartridges (P. 12/1-5) were taken from his possession vide recovery memo. Exh. P.Q.
' Muhammad Iqbal (acquitted accused) was also arrested on the same day and he led to the recovery of hatchet (P. 13), which was taken into possession, vide recovery memo. Exh. P. B.
' After completion of necessary investigation, the challan was put to Court.
6. At the trial the prosecution in all produced 16 witnesses. Reports of Chemical Examiner (Exhs. P. W.
And P. X.), reports of Serologist (Exhs. P. Y. And P. Z.) and report of the Examiner of Fire-arms, Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh. P. A. A.) were also produced in evidence. According to the report (Exh. P. A. A.) of the Examiner of Fire-arms, crime empty (C/1) was found to have been fired from .7 mm. Bore rifle No, 8713. No opinion was given about crime empty marked C/2, as having been fired from the said rifle, because of lack of sufficient data for comparison.
' Muhammad Hussain complainant (P. W. 13), Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 14) and Muhammad Bakhsh (P. W. 15), have given the eye-witness account.
' Muhammad Hussain P.W. Is first cousin of Nur Hussain deceased while Ghazan Khan deceased was married with the sister of Nur Hussain deceased.
' All the three eye-witnesses have stated that they were working in the fields of Shah Nawaz and were making Bannas with deceased Ghazan Khan and Nur Hussain when appellant Miran Bakhsh, armed with a rifle and Muhammad lqbal (acquitted accused) armed witn a kulhari came there.
They pronounced that they had come to take the possession of the land. Miran Bakhsh fired two shots at Ghazan Khan, one of which hit him on his head. He fell down. When Nur Hussain tried to run away, Miran Bakhsh fired two shots, one of which hit him on the head. He fell down. Whereafter, the appellant gave injuries to Nur Hussain with the butt of the rifle and Muhammad Iqbal (acquitted accused) gave injuries from the wrong side of the hatchet to Nur Hussain. Ghazan Khan died on the spot while Nur Hussain died when he was being taken to Pindingheb hospital. Muhammad Hussain has stated that after the occurrence he took Nur Hussain to Talagang hospital where he made statement (Exh. P. E.) before the $.H.O. The other two witnesses have stated that they remained on the spot till the arrival of the police, near the dead body of Ghazan Khan.
' Muhammad Hussain complainant has stated that the motive for the murders was that Shah Nawaz had purchased evacuee land which was under the cultivation of Miran Bakhsh appellant.
Shah Nawaz had ejected Miran Bakhsh two years prior to the occurrence and had given the land for cultivation to Nur Hussain and Ghazan Khan, who were cultivating the same as tenants. In cross-examination, he has denied that the occurrence had taken place in the morning, that he had not witnessed the occurrence and that he had named the appellant on suspicion as accused and had named Muhammad Iqbal (acquitted accused) to damage his career. He has denied the suggestion that he had concocted the -prosecution version after consultation with their Beradari and that the occurrence had not taken place in the land of Shah Nawaz.
' Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 14) has denied' the suggestion in cross-examination that his uncle Allah Bakhsh owned Rs, 700 to appellant and that on the non-payment of the loan a quarrel had taken place between the two. He has also denied the suggestion that he and Muhammad Bakhsh P.W. Were Saipi, or Mueens or Kammis of Ghazan Khan deceased or that Ghazan Khan used to help them. He has also denied the suggestion that he had not seen the occurrence.
' Similar suggestions put to Muhammad Bakhsh (P. W. 15) have been denied by him.
7. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. Has denied the charges. He has denied the recovery of rifle at his instance. In answer to the question, why this case against him and why the P.Ws. Have deposed against him, the appellant made the following statement :- "Fazal Hussain is the brother of P. W. Muhammad Hussain. My wife Mst. Nur Jahan is distant kindred of Muhammad Hussain. She was previously engaged to the said Fazal Hussain. She is proprietor of land in village. Her father had already died and she married with me against the wishes of Muhammad Hussain and other relatives. At this Muhammad Hussain and his relatives became inimical to me. The land of Mst. Nur Jahan is also situated in the same vicinity where the land of Jai Wardaat is situated. Due to that marriage of Mst. Nur Jahan with me when I used to go to her land, the said Muhammad Hussain and his relatives felt annoyance. Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Bakhsh are the `Kammis' of said Muhammad Hussain and his rrlatives. Ghulam Muhammad is inimical to me because of the fact that there was a criminal case against one Ghulam Abbas and my father in wbich father of Ghulam Muhammad had got injuries. My father was acquitted in that case but Ghulam Abbas was convicted. One Allah Bakhsh owed Rs, 700 to me which he did not pay back to me despite my repeated demand and the relations have come strained. Allah Bakhsh is the uncle of Ghulam Muhammad P. W. Due to an enmity with the witnesses they have put their suspicion on me."
' He did not produce any defence.
8. Arguments heard. The F. I. R. In this case was lodged within two hours after the occurrence at Civil Hospital Talagang, which is at a distance of miles from the place of occurrence. We do not find any force in the 7+contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that two hours delay can have any bearing on the case for the reason that we do not consider any element of delay in lodging the F. I. R. One person had died on the spot and the other had received serious and grievous injuries.
The complainant had to shift him to Talagang hospital. Consumption of two hours for taking the injured to the hospital where the report was made to the S. I. Cannot be termed as unnecessary wastage of time.
' The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the P.Ws. Are interested, is devoid of any force. No doubt Muhammad Hussain P. W. Is related to the deceased but the other two P. Ws.
Are independent witnesses. The suggestion that they were Mueens or Saipis of Ghazan Khan deceased has been denied. There is nothing on record to consider that any of the eye-witnesses was inimical to the appellant in any such manner, which would warrant their depositions to be evidence of interested and inimical witnesses. The other ground on which the learned counsel for the appellant wanted us to rule out the evidence of the eye-witnesses is that according to him there is contradiction between the medical evidence and the eye-witness account. He has pointed out that according to the F.I.R. Muhammad Iqbal (acquitted accused) had caused an injury with the hatchet from its right side on the arm of Nur Hussain, but neither any injury on the upper part of the arm of Nur Hussain was found, nor Nur Hussain was found to have suffered any injury with sharp-edged weapon. The contention of the learned counsel to this extent is correct that no sharp- edged injury was found to have been suffered by Nur Hussain deceased. But this position has been explained by the witnesses during trial. Apart from this whatever benefit could be given to the defence has already been given by the trial Court in the sense that Muhammad Iqbal co-accused of the appellant has been acquitted on the basis of this discrepancy along-with some other considerations. We do not think that because of lack of corroboration regarding one injury, stated in the F. I. R. One o F the deceased, the whole of the eye-witness account should be thrown away.
As observed above, the two eye-witnesses are disinterested. Not only that, they have corroborated the account given by the complainant, the eye-witness account in turn finds corroboration from the opinion of the Examiner of Fire-arms of the Forensic Science Laboratory, according to whose opinion, crime empty marked as C/1 (which was taken into possession from the spot) was found to have been fired from 7 mm rifle (which was recovered from the appellant).
' We have considered the evidence of the recovery witnesses and we do not find anything lacking so as to disregard the same. We find that the eye-witness account has been amply corroborated by the recovery of the rifle from the appellant and the report of the Fire-arms Examiner.
' Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress on the fact that motive in this case has not been proved, that it has been disbelieved by the trial Court and that the same is shrouded in mystery. He has contended that since the prosecution have failed to prove the motive, QO case for extreme penalty of death is made out.
' We have considered the evidence of motive and have also gone through the judgment of the trial Court. We do not feel inclined to agree with the finding of the learned trial Court in this regard.
Motive has specifically been stated by the complainant. No suggestion has been put to any of the witnesses that the land which according to the prosecution was given to the deceased for cultivation by Shah Nawaz was earlier to the purchase by Shah Nawaz was not in the cultivation of the appellant. There is no specific denial in this sense. In fact no question has been put to the complanant or the witnesses regarding the ownership of the land or regarding the same having not remained in possession of the appellant before the occurrence or its being under cultivation of the deceased at the time of occurrence, in spite of the fact that Muhammad Hussain complainant during his statement has specifically stated all that, as motive for the occurrence.
It is a case of double murder, no doubt has been left in our mind regarding the appellant having committed the murders of the two deceased, Ghazan Khan and Nur Hussain. We do not find that any case for lesser penalty has been made out. There is no mystery. The occurrence took place in a broad daylight, was witnessed by the PWs. The F.I.R. Was lodged with possible promptitude, the circumstantial evidence in the nature of recoveries and the report of the fire-arm expert and the medical evidence fully corroborates the eye-witness account.
' There is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. The death sentence is confirmed.
9. We have considered Criminal Revision No, 440 of 1980 praying enhancement of the compensation amount. Nothing has been brought on record to make any assessment regarding the financial position of Miran Bakhsh appellant. He has been awarded the extreme penalty. No case for enhancement of sentence of fine or amount of compensation has been made out. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
10. We have considered the prayer in Criminal Revision No, 3 of 1981. The age of Muhammad lqbal respondent (acquitted accused) is recorded as 15 years at the time of trial. We have also gone through the judgment of the trial Court. The medical evidence regarding alleged part played by him is contradictory of the eye-witness account. He would b 14 years of age at the time of occurrence. The allegation of the prosecution is that he had accompanied his father to the place of occurrence. We do not think that a body of 14 years could have been associated by his father in the commission of crime like murder. We find that the learned trial Judges has acquitted the respondent for good reasons. We do not find anything materially wrong to differ with the same. No case for interference by way of exercising revisional powers is made out. The revision petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.