1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This appeal has arisen from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, passed in Criminal Appeal No,70 of 1983, dated 8-5-1985, wherein appellant Jumma Khan was tried alongwith Muhammad Sabir, Muhammad Banaras, Muhammad Bashir and Gulab Khan, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, under section 302/307/148/149, for the murder of Zamarrud deceased, by firing at him on 6-6-1980. In consequence of the trial the Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment, dated 20-4-1983 found only Jumma Khan appellant guilty of the offence and while convicting him under section 302, P.P.C., sentenced him to death. The other accused were, however, acquitted. Fine of Rs, 20,000 was also imposed on the appellant with direction that out of it Rs, 15,000 be paid to the widow of the deceased by way of compensation, or in default the accused should undergo further R.I. For 5 years.
2. ' The appellant filed appeal in the High Court against his conviction and sentence. The complainant party also filed revision against the acquittal of the other accused. The appeal and the revision were heard together by the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, who maintained the conviction and sentence of Jumma Khan appellant and rejected the revision of the complainant party vide judgment, dated 8-5-1985.
3. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant by this Court to consider the question whether the deponent of the F.I.R. Can be believed if he has not given the necessary details as regards the motive and also whether the accused person will deserve death sentence if the complainant side has insulted the accused by outraging the modesty of a girl of their family?
4. ' Briefly, the prosecution case is that about 8-10 days before the occurrence, Riyasat son of Aurangzeb (P.W.8) had teased a niece of Jumma Khan appellant. Zamarrud was the maternal- uncle of Aurangzeb. P.W. Aurangzeb and Zamarrud deceased tried to assure the appellant about the innocence of Riyasat on the Holy Quran but the appellant and his companions were not satisfied with their assurance. On 6-6-1980 at 10 a.m. Aurangzeb and Zamarrud deceased were going back to their home after making purchases in Rawalpindi. On reaching the field of Muhammad Ramzan (P.W.9), the appellant and his companions emerged from behind the Aak plants. Jumma Khan appellant was armed with .12 bore gun, his companions were also armed with other kinds of fire-arms and accused Gulab was armed with a stick. At that time Zamarrud was riding on a she-donkey. Gulab Khan accused challenged Zamarrud deceasd on which Jumma Khan appellant fired at him, hitting him on the front side of his neck. The deceased fell injured.
5. Muhammad Bashir accused also fired a shot but it went amiss and did not hit anybody. The appellant and his co-accused injured Aurangzeb (P.W.8) with the Butts of their fire-arms and stick.
6. Muhammad Ramzan (P.W.9) and one Muhammad Sadiq (abandoned) also saw the occurrence.
7. The accused then decamped from the spot. Janas Khan (P.W.11), S.H.O. Police Station Sangjani was on patrol duty, reached the spot on learning about the occurrence. He recorded the statement Exh.
8. P.L. Of P.W. Aurangzeb on the same day at 3.00 p.m. He then sent it to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh. P.L./A was recorded by A.S.I. Muhammad Sadiq (P.W.12).
9. ' A.S.I. Janas Khan (P.W.11) conducted the investigation, he prepared the injury statement Exh. P.P., inquest report Exh. P.Q. And collected blood-stained earth Exh. P.O. From the spot. He recovered an empty of .12 bore gun Exh. P.M. And an empty of 7 mm rifle Exh. P.N. From there. All these items were secured in sealed parcels. The dead body of the deceased was despatched to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. All the accused were arrested by the police on 13-6-1980. A 'Sota' Exh.P.1 was recovered on 14-6-1980, at the instance of Gulab Khan accused from his house vide memo.
10. Exh. P.F. On the same day a .12 bore gun Exh.P.2 was recovered at the instance of Jumma Khan accused from cattle shed in his residential house, vide memo. Exh. P.G. On 15-6-1980 rifle 7 mm Exh.
11. P.3 was recovered at the instance of Muhammad Bashir accused from a room of his residential house, vide memo. Exh. P.H. On 16-6-1980, a .12 bore gun Exh. P.4 was recovered at the instance of Muhammad Sabir accused from his house vide Memo. Exh. P.J. On the same date a .12 bore gun Exh. P.5 was recovered at the instance of Muhammad Banaras from his house vide memo Exh. P.K.
12. All these items were secured by the Police.
13. ' On 6-6-1980 at 9-00 p.m. Dr. Muhammad Aslam, D.H.O. Rawalpindi, medically examined Aurangzeb (P.W.8) and found 4 injuries on his person, which according to the doctor were caused by blunt weapons within 12 hours duration. On 7-6-1980 the same doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body of Zamarrud deceased and found an oval wound of entrance 2.5 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the front of neck in the middle. No blackening or burning of edges to the wound of entrance was found. The doctor opined that the death of the deceased occurred due to haemorrhage and shock, caused by the fire arm injury, which was sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course 'of nature.
14. ' After completion of the investigation formalities, the accused were challaned to stand their trial. In support of its case regarding the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied upon the ocular evidence furnished by Aurangzeb (P.W.8) and Muhammad Ramzan (P.W.9), on the motive and medical evidence. It also relied upon the stick injuries suffered by P.W. Aurangzeb in the occurrence. As against it the accused denied the charge, saying that they are innocent and that P.W. Ramzan does not have any field of his own near the place of occurrence.
15. ' On a careful review of the evidence on record, we find no force in this appeal which deserves dismissal. There is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel that the lodger of the F.I.R.
16. Had not furnished the necessary details about the motive. The motive given in the F.I.R. Is not different as alleged by the P.W. Aurangzeb in his statement at the trial. In the F.I.R. He stated that his son Riyasat had molested a girl of the accused family. He did not speak differently in his statement at the trial. The motive alleged in the F.I.R. Is the same and if P.W. Aurangzeb furnished details in this behalf in the 3rd Court, it should not be the ground to disbelieve him unless it can be shown that the motive alleged by him is concoction and a fabrication. The occurrence took place in broad daylight, Aurangzeb P.W.8, straightaway charged the appellant for firing at the deceased, as a result of which he suffered death. This P.W. Also bears the stamp of Butt injuries as well as stick injuries on his person. The F.I.R. Was recorded by the S.H.O. Janaz Khan (P.W.11) on the spot who happened to come there on learning about the occurrence. He prepared the injury sheet of P.W.
17. Aurangzeb on the spot, thus there can be no question that P.W. Aurangzcb was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence and not only this but P.W. Muhammad Ramzan also supports him, about the guilt of the appellant. He is neither related to the deceased party nor he has any enmity with the accused party. P.W. Ramzan has held the appellant responsible for the murder of the deceased by firing at him. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the two Courts below rightly found the appellant guilty of the offence beyond any reasonable doubt.
18. This brings us to the question whether the appellant deserves death sentence in the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the appellant has exhibited highhandedness to murder the deceased. The deceased party had tried to pacify the accused party. Despite that the appellant was nursing grudge against the complainant party. He had no right to kill the deceased. The occurrence of molestation of a girl of the accused party had taken place 10 days before the occurrence. Thus it was clearly a pre-planned murder and the appellant was not reconciled to leave the deceased alive. We therefore, do not find any mitigating circumstance to warrant lesser penalty of life imprisonment.
19. ' The result is that this appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed.