IJAZ NISAR; J.--- Muhammad Ishaq son of Muhammad Khan (24) was tried for the murder of Muhammad Latif deceased. By judgment dated 11-5-1987 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death plus a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default to undergo two months' S.I. The amount of fine was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation.
2. Muhammad Ishaq has filed Criminal Appeal No.375 of 1987 while the learned trial Court has made a reference for confirmation of death sentence. Both the matters shall be disposed of by this judgment.
3. The prosecution case is that Mst. Saghir Bibi were of Muhammad Latif, deceased was murdered by Muhammad Ishaq and one Mehdi Khan and they were challaned. On 25-11-1984 Muhammad Latif deceased, his brother Muhammad Hanif, Khalid Javaid P.W.10 son of Muhammad Hanif and Ghulam Ghaus P.W. (not examined) were going to Lala Musa by a bus after attending Court proceedings at Gujrat in connection with the said murder case. At about 5-00 p.m. When the bus reached General Bus Stand, Lala Musa, Mian Khan and Muhammad Ishaq appellant, boarded the bus. The former raised Lalkara, upon which the latter fired two revolver shots at the deceased hitting his neck. The deceased fell injured, and was removed to the hospital in the same bus, where he succumbed to the injuries. The appellant and his companion Mian Khan managed to escape.
Muhammad Hanif P.W.4 reported the matter to S.I. Bashir Ahmad P.W.8 at 5-40 p.m. Vide statement Exh.PA. Formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 was recorded at Police Station, Lala Musa, by S.I. Ghulam Rasul P.W.2.
S.I. Bashir Ahmad P.W.8 prepared the injury statement Exh. P.D. And inquest report Exh. P.E. Of the deceased and then proceeded to the spot wherefrom he secured blood-stained earth and two crime empties, Exhs.P.7 and P.8 and separately sealed them. 1n the meantime, he received information that Muhammad Ishaq appellant had been brought to the hospital in an injured condition. He accordingly proceeded to the hospital and arrested him.
The apprehension of the appellant in an injured condition was explained by Ghulam Muhammad S.I. P.W.11 According to him he was holding a Nakabandi at Kotla Road. He and his companion saw a man running away while many persons were chasing him. They tried to stop him but he fired at them. Consequently, he and Mehdi Khan constable opened fire at him as a result of which he was injured. They captured him and brought him to the hospital. A case under section 307/332/353, P.P.C. And section 13 of the Arms Ordinance was registered against him on that account.
4. In the post-mortem examination the following injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased: (1)A fire-arm entry wound 0.5 c.m. x 0:5 c.m. Behind the left ear.
(2)A fire-arm entry wound 0.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. Below and outer to injuryNo.l.
Death occurred due to shock, haemorrhage and injury to vital organ. Both the injuries were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death.
5. Muhammad Ishaq appellant, was also examined on the same day by Dr. Tanveer Ahmad P.W.14 who found the following injuries on his person: (1)Lacerated wound 1.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x scalp deep on back of skull.
(2)Fire-arm lacerated wound 9 c.m. x 6.5 c.m. x muscle expose tatooing present on the margins on back of middle of left thigh.
(3)Fire-arm lacerated wound 10 c.m. x 7 c.m. x muscle exposed tatooing present at the margins on back of middle of left leg.
(4)Fire-arm lacerated wound 1.25 c.m. x 0.75 c.m. x going deep margins inverted on outer lateral side of upper part of left leg 7 c.m. Below line of knee joint tatooing present; Injury No.1 was caused by blunt weapon while injuries Nos.2 to 4 by fire--arm.
The police found Mian Khan accused aforementioned to be innocent and did not challan him.
6. The crime empties recovered from the spot matched with the revolver secured from the appellant. Report of the Firearm Expert Exh. P.N. Is on pages 15 and 16 of the printed paper book.
7. The appellant denied the prosecution allegations and admitted that he was challaned for the murder of Mst. Saghir Begum were of Latif deceased and was facing the trial when the present occurrence had taken place. Adding, that he was subsequently acquitted. Explaining the case against him he stated that on the day of occurrence after attending the Court he was proceeding to his village. At Lala Musa when he got down from the bus to take another bus he was attacked by the deceased with firearm while his companion gave him sota blows: He fell unconcious and did not know what happened later on. However, he had learnt that the deceased was also fired at. He tendered in evidence copies of the statements Exhs.D.3, D.4 and D.5. Exh.D.3 is the statement of War Abbas Clearner of Bus No.2911-LHD. Exh.D.4 is the statement of Syed Ali Hussain while Exh.D.5 is the statement of Ameer Abbas. All of them denied knowledge about the occurrence in question. They, however, stated that they had seen the police bringing the appellant at the bus stand Lala Musa in an injured condition.
8. The prosecution examined Muhammad Hanif P.W.4 and Khalid Javaid P.W.10 to prove the occurrence. Muhammad Ishaq P.W.13 proved the recovery of blood-stained earth and the crime empties Exhs.P.7 and P.8 from the spot. Muhammad Bashir S.I. P.W.8 recorded the F.I.R. And made the recoveries from the spot.
9. The learned trial Court based conviction of the appellant on motive, ocular and recovery evidence.
10. It is contended that the eye-witnesses being closely related to the deceased were interested and inimical and that the story of the injuries to the appellant has been fabricated, that the recovery of firearm from his possession is not proved by any independent evidence.
The appellant had a strong motive against the deceased, for, he was pursuing the murder case of his were against him. The appellant could not controvert it. Muhammad Hanif P.W.4 and his son Khalid Javaid P.W.10 though very closely related to the deceased were natural witnesses as they were accompanying him at the relevant time. The statement of Muhammad Hanif P.W.4 had been recorded in the case against the appellant for the murder of Mst. Saghir Begum were of the deceased on that date. Khalid Javaid being son of Muhammad Hanif was likely to have accompanied him. There is nothing unusual on his part in this behalf. Both Muhammad Hanif and Khalid Javaid have given a consistent account of the occurrence and their testimony fits in with the medical evidence. Being a day time occurrence and the appellant fully known to them they would not have faced any difficulty in identifying him. There is yet another strong circumstance which corroborates them i.e. Arrest of the appellant injured condition. As already stated above he was apprehended by S.I. Ghulam Muhammad P.W.11 while he was running away. The S.I. Admits to have fired and injured him after he had opened fire at them. The presence of firearm injuries on the person of the appellant lends corroboration to his testimony. The matching of the crime empties P.7 and P.8 with the revolver recovered from his possession is 1 another strong piece of evidence against him.
11. In view of the above overwhelming evidence the prosecution case stands established against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He was, therefore, I rightly convicted. As regards sentence we do not find any mitigating circumstance because he had acted in a brutal manner.
Accordingly, we maintain his conviction and sentence and dismiss the appeal.
The death sentence is confirmed.