MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---Appellant Muhammad Yar was tried for offence under section 302 P.P.C. By the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II. Okara, and convicted for the same on 1-11-1989 and sentenced to death penalty subject to confirmation of the High Court. He was also fined Rs.10,000 and to pay compensation for the same amount to the legal heirs of all the three deceased. He filed appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore the case was also sent for confirmation of death sentence to the same Court. On 26--1-1992 a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the death sentence. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 10-1-1993 in A the words as under:--- "Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the occurrence took place in the area of Basirpur Town and it appears that both the eye-witnesses who were residents of village Marha situate at a distance of about three miles from the place of occurrence, were imported later on. It is further submitted that the petitioner had no motive to kill the deceased persons and the motive--- if any, was with Maqbool son of Abdul Haleem, complainant and husband of Mst. Zakra because as per prosecution's own showing Mst. Zakra had developed illicit relations with Muhammad Akram deceased as well as with Muhammad Yar. The learned counsel contended that Abdul Haleem complainant had strong motive to involve the petitioner in order to save his own son. "
2. It is case of the prosecution that on 14-11-1987 at about 11-00 a.m the appellant committed murders of Muhammad Akram, Mst. Zakran Bibi and her mother Mst. Nawab Bibi by firing at them in the area of Basirpur while they were going to Basirpur donkey cart for getting medicines. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.7 Abdul Haleem and P.W.9 Muhammad Aslam. The motive alleged in the F.I.R. Was that Mst. Zakran Bibi had developed illicit relations with Muhammad Akram deceased as well as with appellant Muhammad Yar. The appellant was annoyed with Mst. Zakran Bibi for having relations with deceased Muhammad Akram and her mother Mst. Nawab Bibi was acting as Vochab between them, The F.I.R. In respect of the same was registered on the statement of witness Abdul Haleem. The appellant was arrested and from his possession his licensed gun was recovered. The crime empties recovered from the Wardat and the gun were sent to the Ballistic Expert, whose report is in positive. The appellant denied the allegations and in answer to questions Nos. 10 and 11 he replied as under:-- "I am innocent. It was an unwitnessed occurrence. The police summoned the witnesses from village Marha and after due deliberations and consultations involved me in this case. The deceased ladies have been turned out of their husbands' house due to their illicit relations. Muhammad Akram was carrying on with Mst. Zakran Bibi while Mst. Nawab Bibi was acting as a Vochali. They were putting up in Mohalla Ghoaspura with Muhammad Akram deceased. None from Mohalla Ghoaspura was prepared for statement against me and only relatives and friends of the complainant have been produced by the complainant. The occurrence did not take place on the she donkey as alleged by the prosecution. The she donkey cart has been adduced in order to show that the occurrence took place in a thoroughfare.
I am poor and Moeen of the village. The father of Muhammad Akram deceased had been paid a heavy sum amount by the complainant to save his own son Maqbool Ahmad and brother-in-law Muhammad Shafi who had also been suspected for the triple murder and the local police in collusion with the complainant has falsely implicated in this case."
3. We have heard Mian Muhammad Yaseen Khan Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court, for the appellant and Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court with Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record, for the State.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that:---
(i) Mst. Zakran Bibi had developed illicit relations with deceased Muhammad Akram, thus eye- witness Abdul Haleem and his son Maqbool Ahmad had motive to commit the offence but not the appellant. There being to versions regarding the motive one advanced by the prosecution and the other one by the defence, the one favourable to the appellant be accepted.
(ii) Eye-witnesses Abdul Haleem and Muhammad Aslam belong to village Marha, which is at a distance of 3 miles from the place of occurrence. Both of them, as such, are chance witnesses.
(i.e) No witness from the vicinity was examined to prove the case.
(iv) Witness Muhammad Nawaz (not examined) got information at 12.00 O'clock as admitted by witness Dilbar Hussain Shah. After the information the case was manoeuvred and the appellant was involved in the case.
(v) No independent corroboration was given to the evidence of eye-- witnesses Abdul Haleem and Muhammad Aslam.
(vi) The investigation of the case was dishonest one.
5. The learned counsel for the State vehemently controverted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and insisted for maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
6. With the assistance of the learned counsel, for the appellant we have gone through the F. I. R. The incident had taken place at about 11-00 a. m. The report of the same was made at 11-15 a. m. By witness Abdul Haleem. The name of witness Muhammad Aslam appears in the F.I.R. Both the witnesses have unanimously implicated appellant Muhammad Yar for having committed murders of Muhammad Akram, Mst. Nawab Bibi and Mst. Zakran Bibi. The immediate recording of the F.I.R.
Would, therefore, reflect that witnesses Abdul Haleem and Muhammad Asalm were present at the the of occurrence and they had witnessed the incident. It may, besides, be observed that within a period of few minutes manoeuvring of false case is impossible. The objection of the defence that they are chance and procured witnesses and as such their evidence should not have been accepted has no force.
7. The learned High Court has dealt with the above objection as under:--- "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 F.I.R. Had been recorded at 11-30 a.m. Such a prompt recording of the F.I.R. Rules out the possibility of the complainant or of Muhammad Aslam P.W. Having been summoned and then planted as the complainant and the eye-witnesses of the occurrence in question. "
8. The abovesaid observations of the High Court also meet with the objection of the defence that witness Muhammad Nawaz got information at 12.00 O'clock through witness Dilbar Hussain Shah and after such information the case was manoeuvred and the appellant was involved in the case.
It may further be observed that witness Abdul Haleem though is brother of Mst. Nawab Bibi, but witness -Muhammad Aslam is independent one. The evidence of Abdul Haleem, complainant, therefore, is corroborated by the independent evidence of Muhammad Aslam. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in that respect is, therefore, superfluous. Witness Muhammad Nawaz's name appears in the F.I.R., but his father's name has not been shown therein. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that he was the brother of the complainant. As his father's name does not appear, the argument of the learned counsel, therefore, carries no value at all. Besides, Muhammad Nawaz has been given up as having been won over by the defence.
9. Reverting to the motive, it may be observed that witness Abdul Haleem and his son Maqbool Ahmad had not restrained deceased Mst. Zakran Bibi and Mst. Nawab Bibi to go with Muhammad Akram to Basirpur. It testifies that they had no grudge against Muhammad Akram. The F.I.R. Reflects that on the day of incident appellant Muhammad Yar had warned Mst. Nawab Bibi and Mst. Zakran Bibi not to go with deceased Muhammad Akram on his donkey cart to Basirpur. Clear motive, therefore, has been assigned by the complainant in F.I.R. Against the appellant. P.W. Abdul Haleem has repeated the same motive in his statement recorded before the trial Court. P.W. Muhammad Aslam in his deposition recorded before the trial Court has stated that at the the of incident the appellant had shouted that he had stopped Mst. Nawab Bibi and Mst. Zakran Bibi not to sit on the '
Rahri' of deceased Muhammad Akram and he also declared that Mst. Zakran Bibi had abandoned him and had developed illicit relations with Muhammad Akram deceased. Therefore, he would not spare all of them. Both these witnesses, therefore, are unanimous so far the motive against the appellant is concerned. The appellant had only suggested that father of Muhammad Akram deceased had been paid a heavy amount by the complainant to save his own son Maqbool Ahmad and brother-in-law Muhammad Shafi, who had also been suspected for the triple murder and the local police in collusion with the complainant has falsely implicated him in this case. The appellant has not brought any material in cross-examination to discredit the evidence of witnesses Abdul Haleem and Muhammad Aslam. He has also not produced any evidence in that respect. The learned trial Court as well as the High Court have believed the motive advanced by the prosecution. Even before us the learned counsel for the appellant was not in a position to convince us that the motive advanced by the appellant was indeed plausible one. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that the appellant had the motive to kill the three persons. The question of to motives regarding the murders does not arise at all.
10. Regarding the non-examining of the witnesses from the vicinity, it may be observed that in the F.I.R. Name of Muhammad Nawaz appears. His I father's name has not been given. However, one Muhammad Nawaz has been given up. In cross-examination it has not been brought on the record by the defence as to who others had witnessed the incident. More saying that persons from the vicinity have not been examined is not enough to discard the positive evidence of to witnesses Abdul Haleem and Muhammad Aslam.
11. Coming to the abortive regarding dishonest investigation, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant actually was arrested on 14-11-1987. He referred to certain documents available on the record. He further contended that on 17-11-1987 the gun was shown to have been recovered from him. The manipulation of the dates 17th instead of 14th of November, 1987, reflects that investigating agency was not impartial one. In that respect it may be observed that the corroborative evidence of recovery of the gun has not been believed by the trial as well as the Appellate Court. The question of arrest of the appellant whether on 14xh or 17th of November, 1987, is of no consequence. The objection raised in that behalf thus would not affect the evidence of the to witnesses Abdul Haleem and Muhammad Aslam.
11-A. Lastly an objective attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was young by of 18 years, hence his sentence may be altered from death to life imprisonment. We are not convinced by his such contention. Young age by itself is not a mitigating circumstance. The appellant had killed three persons in broad daylight. He does not deserve any sympathy. We have gone through the evidence produced by the prosecution, (sic) in juxtaposition: The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have properly assessed the evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence version. It is neither the case of misreading or non reading of the evidence. Hence there is no material in the appeal which may call for interference by this Court. In result of our above said observations the appeal is dismissed.