1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-The appellant Muhammad Daurez was convicted and sentenced to death on two counts for the murder of Muhammad Azeem and his nephew Ghulam Hussain by the Sessions Judge, Jhelum. He was also con--victed under section 307, P. P. C. For murderous assault on Ghulam Hussain's son Ghulam Abbas (C. W. 1) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. These convictions and sentences have been upheld by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court by its judgment dated the 28th of January 1974.
2. Leave to appeal was granted to re-examine the evidence, in the interest of justice, on the contentions that the Courts below were in error in not placing reliance on the statements of the injured person Ghulam Abbas (C. W. 1) and his mother Mst. Saran Bibi (C. W. 2) who were closely related to the deceased Ghularn Hussain, being his son and wife respectively y and that the effect of the recoveries of the crime empties from two places had not been properly appreciated.
3. According to the prosecution, there was bad blood between the appel--lant and the deceased Muhammad Azeem, for the reason that eighteen years prior to the occurrence Muhammad Azeem had given a beating to the appel--lant's father Aurangzeb. One year prior to the occurrence, the appellant had given a beating to Muhammad Azeem's son Ghulam A.I, whereupon Muhammad Azeem and his other son Rab Nawaz had given a beating to the appellant in the bazar. Finally, ten or twelve days prior to the incident the appellant had pasted a political poster on the wall of the village mosque, which poster was torn away by Muhammad Azeem, and while doing so Muhammad Azeem, along with his nephew Ghulam Hussain deceased, had abused the appellant.
4. The incident took place at degarwala (about 3-15 p.m.) on 13-11-1970 in the area of village Padshahan, six miles from Police Station Daman, in the District of Jhelum. At that time the deceased Muhammad Azeem was sitting at the shop of the village cobbler Abdul Hakim (P. W. 12) when the appellant came there armed with a gun, and wearing a bandolier. After giving a lalkara he fired twice at Muhammad Azeem from the entrance of the shop. Besides Abdul Hakim, the incident was witnessed by a brick-maker by the name of Niaz A.I (P. W. 11). This man at once rushed to the house of the deceased and informed his son Muhammad Ashraf (P. W. 14), whereupon the latter came to the shop of Abdul Hakim and saw his father lying dead there.
5. While Muhammad Ashraf was still present at the shop of Abdul Hakim Muhammad Khan (P. W. 13) came there and informed Muhammad Ashraf that the appellant had climbed the roof of his courtyard and had fired at Muhammad Khan's brother Ghulam Hussain, while shouting that he had already murdered Ghulam Hussain's uncle Muhammad Azeem and that now it was Ghulam Hussain's turn. Muhammad Khan further informed Muhammad Ashraf that as a result of this firing Ghulam Hussain's son, Ghulam Abbas (C. W. 1), had also been injured. According to Muhammad Khan, this firing incident, resulting in injury to Ghulam Abbas and death of Ghulam Hussain was witnessed by Muhammad Khan himself besides Ghulam Hussain's wife (C. W. 2) and of course Ghulam Hussain's son Ghulam Abbas.
6. On receiving information of the two murders, Muhammad Ashraf pro--ceeded to the police station and made the first information report at 8-30 p.m. The same evening. A. S. I. Dadan Khan (P. W. 15) was able to recover two crime empties from the shop of Muhammad Azeem, two crime empties from the roof of the appellant, and four pellets which were found embedded in the wall of the kitchen of the house of Ghulam Hussain deceased. He also collected blood-stained earth from inside the shop of Abdul Hakim, as well as from the courtyard of the house of Ghulam Hussain deceased. A charpai lying inside the shop of Abdul Hakim was also found to have keen stained with blood. The cobbler produced before tire Investigating Ulcer the shoes which the deceased Muhammad Azeem had brought to his shop for repairs.
7. The appellant was arrested on the 17th of November 1970, and produced his licensed gun, along with a bandolier containing eleven cartridges.
8. According to the report of the Firearms Expert, Abdul Rashid (P. W. 10), all the four crime empties recovered from the places of the two murders were found to have been fired from this gun.
9. The appellant pleaded not guilty at the trial and denied all the allegations made against him. He, however, admitted that he was the owner of tile licensed gun and had produced it before the Investigating Officer, asserting that this took place on the 14th of November and not on the 17th of November 1970.
10. At the trial, the prosecution placed reliance on the ocular evidence of Niaz A.I (P. W. 11) and Abdul Hakim (P. W. 12) in relation to the murder of Muhammad Azeem ; and on the evidence of Muhammad Klan (P. W. 13) in connection with the murder of Ghulam Hussain deceased. The prosecu--petition sought corroboration of the evidence of these witnesses from the incriminating recoveries already mentioned above.
11. Ghulam Hussain's son Ghulam Abbas and his wife Mst. Saran Bibi were declared hostile during the commitment proceedings, and they were accordingly given up by the prosecution as having been won over. However, they were examined as Court witnesses on the application of the appellant.
12. Both of them stated that at the time of the occurrence they were returning to the village in the company of Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Azeem deceased, and` that they heard gunshots when they had reached the Bhakki of the village, at a distance of about 80 or 85 yards from the house of Ghulam Hussain deceased. As a result of the first shot, Ghulam Abbas was hit on the shoulder and he fell down. Thereafter, four or five more shots were fired which injured Muhammad Azeem and Ghulam Hussain. Both these witnesses asserted that as it was sunset time, the assailant could not be seen as he had concealed himself in the depression of the Bhakki. On hearing the alarm raised by Mst. Saran Bibi, many people gathered there and arranged to carry the three injured persons to their respective houses. Muhammad Azeem, while being carried on a cot, died on the way and his dead body was placed in the shop of cobbler Abdul Hakim, whereas Ghulam Hussain deceased and his injured son Ghulam Abbas were brought to their own house where Ghulam Hussain died later.
13. The Courts below have accepted the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses as regards both the murders, and have rejected the version given by Ghulam Abbas and his mother Mst.
14. Saran Bibi even though they are both closely related to Ghulam Hussain deceased. The High Court has found corroboration in the incriminating recoveries particularly, the matching of the four crime empties with the licensed gun of the appellant, the presence of human blood in the shop of Abdul Hakim and the courtyard of Ghulam Hussain deceased and also in the direction of the injuries found on the person of Ghulam Hussain, indicating thereby that shots were fired at him from the roof of the house.
15. It is submitted by Dr. Khalid Ranjha, learned counsel for the appellant, that there was no reason for Ghulam Hussain's son and widow to falsely exonerate the appellant, and the Courts below were clearly in error in refusing to place reliance on the version of the incident given by these two witnesses. He contends that the incident having taken place at sun-set time, the identity of the assailant could not have been ascertained by the witnesses, and they were accordingly naming the appellant on account of suspicion and enmity. He contends that Niaz A.I (P. W. 11) was in any case inimical towards the appellant on account of the abduction of his sister Mst. Siftan by one Ghulam Muhammad, who was being supported by the appellant and his father. Learned counsel also contends that the evidence of cobbler Abdul Hakim is contradicted by the medical evidence, as one of the injuries found on Muhammad Azeem deceased had charring around its edges, which could not have been the case if the shots were fired from the entrance of the shop. He next submits that there are material contradictions between the statements of the eye-witnesses, which go to show that they were probably not present at the time of the two incidents. Finally, learned counsel submits that the appellant has been under sentence of death since 1972, and for that reason his sentence ought to be commuted into one of imprisonment for life.
16. After examining the available evidence and giving due consideration to the submissions made by Dr. Khalid Ranja, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal has to be dismissed.
17. We shall first take up the question whether the Courts below were right in rejecting the version of the two incidents given by Ghulam Abbas (C. W. 1) and his mother Mst. Saran Bibi (C. W. 2). It is undoubtedly true that these two witnesses are closely related to the deceased Ghulam Hussain, being his son and wife respectively, and for that reason they would normally not be expected to falsely exonerate the murderer, if indeed they had witnessed the crime and identified the assailant.
18. We find, however, that there is good reason for their efforts to save the appellant. The deceased Ghulam Hussain was the son of one Saghar Khan and he was married to his paternal cousin Mst.
19. Saran Bibi, the daughter of Saghar Khan's brother Mehr Khan. The appellant Daurez is the son of the third brother Aurangzeb. Mst. Saran Bibi was obviously prevailed upon by the family to save her paternal cousin Daurez, as her husband Ghulam Hussain was in any case dead. Ghulam Hussain's son, Ghulam Abbas, has clearly acted under the influence of her mother Mst. Saran Bibi. This close relationship of these witnesses with the appellant sufficiently explains the stance they have adopted during these proceedings.
20. As regards the death of Ghulam Hussain, here again the presence of blood in his courtyard, the recovery of pellets from the wall of the kitchen of his house, as well roof of the appellant's house, clearly establish the fact that the assault was launched when Ghulam Hussain was present in the courtyard of his house. These facts also establish that Ghulam Abbas was also injured during the course of the same incident.
21. Having thus discarded the deliberately false account given by Ghulam Abbas and his mother Mst.
22. Saran Bibi, we turn to an examination of the account given by the prosecution witnesses. We are not at all persuaded that Niaz A.I was inimical to the appellant in any manner. Even if it be accepted that Niaz A.I's sister Mst. Siftan was abducted by one Ghulam Muhammad, it appears that this tool` place about twenty years before the occurrence, and there is nothing to show that he appellant opt his father Aurangzeb had been shielding Ghulam Muhammad. In any case, the testimony of the cobbler Abdul Ilakim in whose shop Muhammad Azeem was murdered, could not be discarded for any reason whatsoever. This man, is not related to the parties, and has no motive whatsoever to falsely implicate the appellant. The presence of blood inside his shop, and on the cot inside in the shop establishes beyond doubt that this was the place where Muhammad Azeem was murdered, and where admittedly the dead body of Muhammad Azeem was found by the Investigating Officer. We consider that on the basis of the evidence of Abdul Hakim alone a conviction could be recorded and sustained against the appellant for the murder of Muhammad Azeem.
23. The ocular account given by Abdul Hakim also finds corroboration from the fact that the crime empties recovered from his shop were found to have been fired from the licensed gun belonging to the appellant. The contention that Abdul Hakim's evidence was contradicted by the medical evidence, inasmuch as charring was found around the edges of one of the injuries sustained by Muhammad Azeem, has been rightly rejected by the High Court. In the first place, the learned trial Judge.Who inspected the clothes worn by Muhammad Azeem at the time of the murder, was of the view that the stains were of blood and not of charring. Even otherwise, there is no clear evidence as to the dimensions of the shop of Abdul Hakim, and accordingly, it is not possible to fix, with exactitude, the distance from which the shots were fired at the deceased. In these circumstances, the ocular account given by a completely disinterested and natural witness cannot be negatived, or even doubted, on the basis of conjectures arising from the medical evidence.
24. Turning now to the murder of Ghulam Hussain, we find that the identity of the assailant is fully established by the testimony of Ghulam Hussain brother Muhammad Khan, who is also a paternal cousin of the appellate Even though there was bad blood between .The appellant and Muhammad Azeem, yet nothing was brought on the record to show that Muhammad Khan was at any stage a party to any of the incidents that had taken place between the appellant and Muhammad Azeem.
25. It follows, therefore, that Muhammad Khan, even though closely related to the deceased Ghulam Hussain, had no reason to give false evidence against the appellant nave already stated that the, place of the murder of Ghulam Hussain is fully established by the fact that four pellets were found embedded in the wall of Ghulam Hussain's kitchen, and two crime empties were found on the adjoin--ing roof of the appellant, from where be had fired at Ghulam Hussain, who was went in his courtyard along with his son Ghulam Abbas The ocular account given by Muhammad Khan was rightly accepted by the two Courts below. If any corroboration was needed, it was provided by the presence of the pellets and the matching of the two crime empties with the appellant's gun. The medical evidence was also in accord with the ocular account given by Muhammad Khan inasmuch as the direction of several injuries found on Ghulam Hussain deceased was from upwards to downwards, thus showing that the assailant was at a higher level at the time of firing the shots.
26. Although the learned counsel contended that there were material con--tradictions between the statements of the eye-witnesses, but no such contradictions were specifically pointed out by Dr. Khalid Ranjha, and we do not find that the evidence of otherwise natural and trustworthy witnesses can be doubted or rejected on the basis of minor or trifling contradictions.
27. As a result of the re-examination of the evidence brought on the record, we are thus satisfied that the appellant has been rightly convicted of both the murders, and also of causing murderous assault on Ghulam Abbas.
28. As regards the sentence for the two counts of murder, it is correct that the appellant was first sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge on the 1st of March 1972, and since then he has been in the condemned cell, but consider--ing the number of murder cases coming before the High Courts as well as this Court, the time taken in the finalisation of the present case cannot be regarded as being extraordinary or inordinate such as to justify the imposition of the lesser penalty on considerations of humanity or expectation of life. There are otherwise no extenuating circumstances in favour of the appellant, who has clearly acted in a cruel and wanton manner in murdering two persons in cold blood.
29. As a result, we find no merit in this appeal and hereby dismiss the same.