KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY J.-Muhammad Yar was the solitary accused tried by a learned A.S.J. Of Okara for having committed the murders of Muhammad Akram, Mst. Zakran and Mst. Nawab Bibi.
2. Through a judgment' dated 1.11.1984 passed by the said learned Court, Muhammad Yar was found guilty of all the three murders and having been convicted U/S 302 P.P.C., he was sentenced to suffer death and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-or to undergo four years R.I. In default of payment of the^ said fine on three counts. He was also ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 10,()l)0/-as compensation to the heirs of each deceased person or to suffer six months R.I. In default of payment of the said compensation.
3. Murder Reference No. 246/89 seeks confirmation of the sentence of death awarded to the said Muhammad Yar who in turn challenges the above- noticed convictions and sentences recorded against him through Crl. A. No. 806/89.
4. Both these matters are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
5. The occurrence in question which had witnessed the above-mentioned tripple murders had taken place near the ABADI of Ghauspura on Marrha- Baseerpur Road at about 11.00 a.m. On 14.11.1987.
6. The same had been reported to Ghulam Farid, Inspector/S.H.O. Of P.S. Baseerpur near the railway crossing of Baseerpur at about 11.15 a.m. By Abdul Haleem P.W. Who was a brother of Mst. Nawab Bibi deceased.
7. It may be mentioned here that Mst. Zakran deceased was a daughter of Mst. Nawab Bibi deceased and was married to a son of Abdul Haleem complainant P.W. Who, as has been mentioned above, was a brother of Mst. Nawab Bibi deceased. Muhammad Akram deceased was Stated to be a paramour of Mst. Zakran deceased.
8. Abdul Haleem complainant had alleged through the above-mentioned statement made to Ghulam Farid, Inspector (PW-11) that he was a cultivator residing in village Marrha while Mst. Nawab Bibi deceased was his sister who was not keeping well during the days of occurrence.
9. He had further alleged that in the morning of the day of occurrence, Mst. Nawab Bibi deceased got ready to go to Baseerpur, alongwith his daughter Mst. Zakran deceased to get medicine and was told by Muhammad Yar accused not to go to Baseerpur on the donkey cart of Akram deceased.
10. The complainant had further stated that Mst. Nawab Bibi and Mst. Zakran deceased refused to oblige Muhammad Yar accused and left for Baseerpur on the donkey cart of Akram deceased. He had further claimed that he and Muhammad Aslam (PW-9) also left for Baseerpur 0n foot for some personal errands.
11. The complainant had disclosed that at about 11.00 a.m., when the donkey cart carrying the three deceased persons reached near Ghauspur and while the complainant and Muhammad Aslam P.W. Were also walking alongwith the said donkey cart, Muhammad Yar accused appeared there with a .12 bore. Gun and after raising a LALKARA fired shots killing all the three deceased persons at the spot.
12. Abdul Haleem complainant had disclosed that both, Muhammad Yar accused and Muhammad Akram deceased had developed illicit liaison with Mst. Zakran deceased and it was this rivalry between the two, which had led to the murders in question.
13. During the course of investigation, seven crime empties P-ll/1-7 were recovered from the spot and were seized vide memo Exh. PH.
14. Muhammad Yar accused was arrested on 17.11.1987 and at the time of his arrest, he was found in possession of a double barrel gun P-13 which was also seized by Ghulam Farid, Inspector (PW-11) vide memo. Exh. PK.
15. . Although according to the report of the Fire-Arms Expert, Exh.PY, the. Seven crime empties above-mentioned were found to have been fired from the above-mentioned gun P-13, but this piece of evidence is of no consequence to the prosecution because the crime empties after their recovery on 14,11.1987, were kept at the police station and Were despatched to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 18.11.1987 together with the gun in question only after the said gun had been allegedly recovered by the I.O. On 17.11.1987.
16. Ghulam Farid, Inspector/I.O. (PW-11) had also taken into possession a blood stained donkey cart P-12 on which, the three deceased persons were allegedly travelling at the time of occurrence.
17. When confronted with the prosecution case, Muhammad Yar accused pleaded, through bis statement U/S 342 Cr.P.C,, that he was innocent and stated that the occurrence in question was an un-witnessed occurrence whereafter the police had summoned the complainant and the other eye-witnesses from village Marrha and had thereafter falsely involved him in the occurrence in question as a result of the deliberations and consultations which had taken place between them.
18. Canvassing acquittal for Muhammad Yar appellant, his learned counsel argued that the appellant had no motive to kill the deceased persons and the motive in fact was with the husbands of the two deceased ladies on account of Mst. Zakran deceased having developed illicit liaison with Muhammad Akram deceased as also with Muhammad Yar appellant and Mst. Nawab Bibi acting as a go-between for the purpose; that both the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses of the occurrence in question; that no corroboration was available in support of the ocular testimony and that in the circumstances, the prosecution having failed to prove its case against the appellant, he deserved to be acquitted of the charge.
19. The occurrence in, question had taken place on a public thoroughfare while the three deceased persons were on their way to Baseerpur. In the circumstances, the only witnesses who could be available to the prosecution would be the passersby and the testimony of such like witnesses could not be thrown out in the present case only because they were chance witesses.
20. The offence in question had been committed in broad-day-light i.e. At 11.00 a.m. At a public place which was a main road leading to Baseerpur. In the circumstances, it is not believable that the occurrence could have gone unwitnessed or that the assailant could escape un-identified.
21. No enmity was suggested by the defence to the eye-witnesses- which could have prompted them to falsely and maliciously substitute the present appellant with the actual culprit. This aspect of the case becomes more striking because despite three persons having been killed during the occurrence in question, only a single person was nominated as the assailant.
22. The ocular testimony offered by the complainant Abdul Haleem and Muhammad Aslam P.W.
Who in any case are independent witnesses, inspires confidence and is, accordingly, believed by us.
23. The presence of Muhammad Akram deceased alongwith the two female deceased persons and the three having been killed at the same spot while travelling together, is a circumstance which lends support to the motive alleged by the prosecution and in any case, it is not believable that a real brother i.e. Abdul Haleem complainant would level such scandalous accusations against his own real sister as also against his real sister's daughter who also happens to be his daughter-in-law, unless the same were true. .
24. In view of the material on record which has been noticed and examined above, we find that no exception can be taken to the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court.
25. There is yet another aspect of this case. The occurrence had taken place at 11-00 A.M; the complainant had reported the same to Ghulam Farid SHO at 11-15 A.M. And the FIR had been recorded at 11-30 A.M... Such a prompt recording of the FIR rules out the possibility of the complainant or of Mohammad Aslam PW having been summoned and then planted as the complainant and the eye-witnesses of the occurrence in question.
26. Having thus believed the prosecution case, the position of Mohammad Yar appellant which emerges vis-a-vis the deceased persons is only that of a paramour and no premium can be given to him to have dope the three deceased persons to death only because of a grief entertained by him in connection with an immoral liaision which he had developed with one of the deceased persons.
27. Therefore, we find no mitigating circumstance which could warrant imposition of a lesser penalty provided for the charge of murder.
28. The sentences awarded to Mohammad Yar appellant by the learned trial Court are, therefore, maintained and the death sentence awarded to him on three counts IS CONFIRMEE).
29. Murder Reference No. 246/89 is answered in the affirmative and CrlA. No. 806/89 is dismissed.