' NAIMUDDIN, J.--Appellant Hussaini son of Sattar, his 'Ham Zulr Ghulam son of Dad, his another 'Ham Zulf Waryam son of Dad and brother of Ghulam, Dad son of Sultan and Jalli son of Amir were tried for the conspiracy and triple murder of Hafiz Abaidullah, Mst. Bashiran and Mst. Zainab alias Zaitoon by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who by the judgment dated 3-11-1982 convicted all of them under section 302/149/120-B, P.P.C. As a result of conviction the appellant Hussaini was sentenced to death plus fine of Rs,20,000 or in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with the direction that if the fine was realised from him half of the same should be paid as compensation to the heirs of the three deceased in equal shares. The other four convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine of Rs,2,000 each or in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each with the same direction as regards the compensation as given in the case of Hussaini. All of them including Hussaini were also convicted under section 364, P.P.C. Read with section 120-B, P.P.C. For conspiracy of abduction of Hafiz Abaidullah deceased and under section 148, P.P.C. But their convictions and sentences under the aforesaid sections are no more relevant for they were set aside by the High Court on appeal filed by them and they were acquitted on getting benefit of doubt. Similarly the convictions and sentences under the aforesaid sections of Hussaini appellant were also set aside. However, his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. For the three murders and sentence of death was confirmed maintaining the sentence of fine as aforesaid and his appeal was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated 26-5-1986. The Revision for enhancement of sentences awarded to the four acquitted accused was also dismissed.
2. The appellant Hussaini sought leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court and it was granted only to consider the question of sentence awarded A to him by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.
3. The brief facts necessary for consideration of the question are that Jahana got a case registered under section 302, P.P.C. At the Police Station Gaggo District Vehari against the appellant.
According to the F.I.R. Jahana (C.W. 1) and his nephew Muhammad Sadiq (C.W. 2) as well as Sultan (C.W. 3) were proceeding to Burewala in order to purchase seeds of cotton crop and at the fateful time when they passed by the house of the appellant they heard cries from inside the house. The three of them rushed inside the house and saw the appellant armed with a hatchet causing injuries to a person whom they subsequently came to know as Hafiz Abaidullah. He gave a hatchet blow which fell on his head and as a result Hafiz Abaidullah deceased fell down on the ground.
While he was in the fallen condition, the appellant gave him another hatchet blow which fell on his right ear, neck and face. In the meantime Mst. Zainab deceased who was 'Saali' of the appellant, as well as Mst. Bashiran deceased wife of the appellant intervened and tried to stop the appellant. On this he gave successive hatchet blows to Mst. Zainab, which fell on her neck, nose and forehead as well as wrist of right arm and left hand. She also fell down on the ground. Then the appellant gave a hatchet blow to Mst. Bashiran which fell on her and she tried to run away through the outside door.
But the appellant caught hold of her from her pig-tail and dragged her back and then gave her successive hatchet blows on her neck and she also fell down on the ground. Then the appellant took out a pistol from his 'jhola' and fired at Hafiz Abaidullah deceased. Thereafter, the appellant tried to run away but he was apprehended on the spot alongwith pistol as well as hatchet by the eye-witnesses who produced him alongwith the weapons of offence before Baba Ahmad Khan Lambardar (C.W. 4). Hafiz Abaidullah, Mst. Zainab alias Zaitoon and Mst. Bashiran died on the spot as a result of the injuries sustained by them at the hands of the appellant. It is stated that Hafiz Abaidullah deceased had come to the house of the appellant in furtherance of his illicit liaison with Mst. Zainab deceased when the appellant came from outside and on seeing them toghether murdered them both as well as his wife Mst. Bashiran deceased who had tried to intervene.
4. After investigation the challan was sent up only against Hussaini who was mentioned as the sole accused in the F.I.R. However, subsequently after about 2-1/2 months a complaint was instituted against Hussaini as well as the remaining four convicts at the instance of Qutab Din (P.W. 8) brother of Hafiz Abaidullah deceased.
5. The same trial Court tried both these matters simultaneously as witnesses in the challan case had been examined as complainant's witnesses in the complaint case and thereafter the challan case was withdrawn. In the complaint case, however, the version as given by Qutab Din (P.W. 8) is different. It is to the effect that Hafiz Abaidullah deceased was married to Mst. Wallan deceased also a sister of Mst. Bashiran deceased wife of the appellant as well as Mst. Zainab deceased wife of Waryam. This Mst. Wallan had been previously married to one Habib who was maternal-cousin of Ghulam appellant. Mst. Wallan had divorced Habib and thereafter had married Hafiz Abaidullah deceased. This had caused annoyance to Habib as well as his relatives namely, Ghulam etc. And eventually on 11-1-1978 her former husband Habib as well as Ghulam and Jalli,Amir, Pehlwan and Farid had abducted Mst. Wallan deceased and thereafter they are alleged to have murdered her.
Accordingly, a case was registered against them. It is stated that Hafiz Abaidullah deceased had been pursuing the murder case of his wife Mst. Wallan deceased as against the accused persons in that case which included besides others, Ghulam and Jalli,the acquitted accused. He was told by the accused party on numerous occasions not to pursue that case but he did not stop doing so.
Hence Ghulam, Waryam, Dad and Jalli the acquitted accused had conspired with the appellant to somehow or the other deceitfully take away Hafiz Abaidullah deceased from his village to the house of the appellant and there to murder him. It is further stated that Mst. Zainab deceased who happened to be the wife of Waryam the acquitted accused, had left her husband and was living in the house of Mst. Bashiran deceased her sister, wherefrom she had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage as against Waryam. According to this version Hafiz Abaidullah deceased was deceitfully brought to his house by the appellant on the fateful day and thereafter the remaining four appellants also came there armed and they all attacked Hafiz Abaidullah deceased with their respective hatchets and tokas. In the process they also murdered Mst. Zainab deceased and Mst.
Bashiran deceased wife of the appellant who had tried to intervene. In this version Allah Bakhsh (P.W. 7) had also gone with Hafiz Abaidullah deceased to the house of the appellant and he was eye-witness of the occurrence. The trial Court believed the motive stated in the complaint filed by Qutab Din brother of Hafiz Abaidullah deceased for the triple murder as the challan in the F.I.R.
Case had been withdrawn after the evidence was recorded.
6. The High Court believed the motive for the triple murder as given by Qutab Din and not one given by Jahana (C.W.1) an unconnected person in the F.I.R., for cogent reasons. The reasons given by the High Court for preferring the version as given by Qutab Din in the complaint may be stated here in the words of the High Court itself:- "The next point which requires consideration is that although the F.I.R. Which had been disowned by Jahana C.W. Was got registered by him on 5-6-1980, three days thereafter Qutab Din (P.W.8) brother of Hafiz Abaidullah deceased, on 8-6-1980 had made an application before the D.I.-G.
Police, Multan Range which is Ex.C.W.10/1 and 2 at pages 85 to 88 of the printed paper book. He had made this application for transfer of the investigation of the said case to the Crimes Branch because of the influence of the accused party. In this application while giving the aforesaid background in respect of motive he had stated that Hussaini appellant in his presence had come to see his brother Hafiz Abaidullah deceased on 3-6-1980 in his house and asked him to accompany him and Hafiz Abaidullah deceased told him that he would come to his house on 5-6- 1980 in the Chak. Accordingly Hafiz Abaidullah deceased went to the house of Hussaini appellant on 5-6-1980 but on the following day i,e. 6-6-1980 at noon time Qutab Din P.W. Came to know that he had been murdered in the house of Hussaini appellant alongwith Mst. Bashiran deceased as well as Mst. Zainab alias Zaitoon deceased. It was stated in the application that it was falsely alleged as against Hafiz Abaidullah deceased that he had illicit relationship with Mst. Zainab alias Zaitoon deceased. On the contrary Hafiz Abaidullah deceased was a virtuous person and Hafiz of Quran and that he was 50 years old. Thereafter on 8-6-1980 statement was recorded of Qutab Din P.W. In support of his application as stated above. Thus, it is evident that although F.I.R. Had been registered on 5-6-1980 by an unconnected person like Jahana C.W. Who subsequently disowned it, Qutab Din P.W. Brother of Hafiz Abaidullah deceased, three days after on 8-6-1980 had tried his best to inform the police authorities to transfer the investigation to the Crimes Branch as the accused party was influential and they had registered in which a false motive had been shown. At any rate, subsequently he instituted the complaint case on 17-8-1980 in which he alleged that conspiracy was hatched amongst the appellants to the effect that Hussaini appellant would persuade Hafiz Abaidullah deceased to come to his house and that thereafter the rest would also subsequently join him and that in this way they murdered Hafiz Abaidullah deceased. According to the testimony of Qutab Din P.W. When Hafiz Abaidullah deceased went alongwith Hussaini appellant Allah Bakhsh (P.W.7) had also accompanied him. So, it was in this way that Allah Bakhsh P.W. Was cited as an eye-witness of the occurrence."
7. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there were two versions as to motive; one given by Jahana (C.W.1) and the other by Qutab Din (P.W.8), and in view of the F.I.R. (Ex.P.E.) version of Jahana a lesser punishment than death was called for. Although the High Court had accepted the version as given by Qutab Din in the light of his own evidence and the testimony of Allah Bakhsh (P.W.7) for cogent reasons but even if we consider for the sake of arguments only the motive version as given by Jahana as correct still no reason, whatsoever, was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as why the appellant should have killed his own wife, Mst.
Bashiran and that too cruelly. Therefore, in either case, the murder of Mst. Bashiran called for the award of normal penalty of death.
8. On going through the relevant record we are also convinced that the motive version given by Qutab Din and accepted by the two Courts was correct and in this view of the matter the appellant has been awarded proper and legal sentence.
9. We, therfore, do not find any merits in this appeal and accordingly dismiss it. These are the reasons for the short order passed earlier.