KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- One Atif Shahbaz was tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Sialkot for the murder of Aurang Zeb. Through his judgment, dated 30-3-1993, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the said Atif guilty of the said charge; convicted him under section 302(a), P.P.C. And punished him with death as Qisas.
2. Murder Reference No,98 of ,1993 seeks confirmation of the said sentence of death while Criminal Appeal No,218 of 1993 filed by the said Atif impugns the .Bovementioned conviction and punishment recorded against him. Both these matters are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
3. The occurrence in question had taken place on 14-5-1991 at about 5-00 p.m. Outside the Bethak of Aurang Zeb deceased in village Satra about one furlong from Police Station Satra of District Sialkot and the said occurrence had been reported at the said police station the same day at about 5-30 p.m. By one Hassan Zakria who is a brother of Aurang Zeb deceased.
4. Narrating the occurrence and the background leading thereto Hassan complainant had mentioned that about 3-1/2 months prior to the occurrence one Najaf Mushtaq had gone for duck- shooting along with Aurang Zeb deceased and one Iftikhar Ahmad and that during the said shoot the said Najaf Musthaq had died because of a fire-arm injury which he had suffered on account of his own negligence. The complainant had further mentioned that the father of the said Najaf Mushtaq, namely, Mushtaq Rasool had got a murder case registered bearing F.I.R. No,25 of 1991 against Aurang Zeb deceased and others which case had, however, been cancelled as a result of the investigation. The complainant had claimed that at the time of the present occurrence he was sitting in his Bethak along with Aurang Zeb deceased, Jan Muhammad P.W.2 and Muhammad Hanif P.W.3 when the said deceased went out at about 5-00 p.m. To fetch some gunny bags and that when the said deceased was coming back and had reached outside the courtyard of their Bethak, Atif accused reached there after arming himself with a Carbine and fired a shot at Aurang Zeb who fell injured and died at the spot.
5. The complainant had alleged that Atif accused had committed the murder of Aurang Zeb deceased on account of instigation to him with respect to the murder of Najaf Mushtaq abovementioned who was a Chacha Zad of the said accused.
6. Tahir Mahmood, Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W.13) visited the place of occurrence and collected blood- stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.D. He arrested Atif accused on 19-7-1991 who then allegedly led to the recovery of a carbine (P.1) with one empty (P.2) on 1-8-1991 which were seized vide memo.
Exh.P.E.
7. When confronted with the prosecution case Atif accused pleaded innocence and claimed that he had been falsely involved in this murder by the interested P.Ws. On account of mere suspicion and further that Aurang Zeb deceased had in fact died in an unwitnessed occurrence. He produced Muhammad Arshad, H.C. As his defense witness who had brought a number of F.I.Rs, in which Aurang Zeb deceased appeared amongst the accused persons, perhaps to demonstrate that the said deceased had a large number of enemies.
8. Canvassing acquittal for Atif appellant it was argued before us that all the three eye-witnesses were chance witnesses of the occurrence in question; that the murder of the deceased had gone witnessed and the appellant had been implicated on account of mere suspicion and that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond doubt.
9. Hassan Zakria complainant is a brother of Aurang Zeb deceased. He had established a school in Gujranwala where he resided with his wife and children. He had, however, explained that their ancestral land had been partitioned as a result of which 40 acres of land situated in village Satra had fallen to his share which he was personally cultivating and that it was for this reason that he had to go to the village Satra almost everyday. Needless to add here that Gujranwala was not very far away from village Satra and it was not unbelievable that the complainant could commute between Gujranwala and Satra almost every day. The other two eye-witnesses, namely, Jan Muhammad P.W.2 and Muhammad Hanif P.W.3 are not related to either side. They are residents of the locality and their claim of being present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time was also not implausible. Needless to mention here that the occurrence in question had taken place immediately outside the gate of the Bethak of the complainant party.
10. The defence plea that the murder in question had gone witnessed and that the appellant had been falsely implicated on account of mere suspicion is a plea which does not inspire confidence.
The place of occurrence is situated on Daska-Satra Road with a Mosque, a shop and other houses located in the immediate vicinity of the venue of the occurrence. It is not believable that an occurrence which had taken place in a broad daylight on a public thoroughfare when the place of occurrence was also surrounded by a Mosque, a shop and other houses would have gone witnessed or where the assailant could have escaped unidentified. Secondly, if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that no one had seen the murder in question being committed even then the alleged substitution of the appellant for the real culprit is not acceptable explanation of the appellant's allegedly false involvement. It was the defense itself which had brought on record, as noticed above, that Aurang Zeb deceased was involved in a large number of cases and consequently had a lot of enemies. If someone had to be implicated on account of mere suspicion then the target of this suspicion would have been one of the alleged enemies of Aurang Zeb deceased with whom the said deceased was involved in criminal litigation and the axe would not have fallen on the appellant with whom the complainant party had no enmity or animosity at all.
Even if it is further presumed that the complainant party had suspected that the deceased was murdered in connection with the death of Najaf Mushtaq abovementioned then in that eventuality also the suspicion would not have fallen on Atif appellant who was only a Chacha Zad of the said Najaf Mushtaq but the suspicion would have rested on the father of the said Najaf Mushtaq who had even got a murder case registered against the deceased and others or some brothers etc. Of the said Najaf. Therefore, looking at the matter in question from whatever. Angle, it does not stand to reason that Atif Shehbaz appellant would have been nominated as a sole culprit on account of mere suspicion. It may be added here that not only that nothing could be brought on record by the defense to suggest any on the part of the complainant party which could have prompted them to falsely accuse the appellant of the murder in question but also it had been asserted by the complainant that the appellant was closely related to him being a nephew of his brother-in-law and thus, there was no occasion for the complainant to maliciously burden the said appellant with the said murder.
11. Having, thus, examined the entire material available on record and having heard the learned counsel for the parties we find that no exception could be taken to the finding of guilt recorded against the appellant by the learned trial Judge.
12. This brings us to the question of confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to Atif Shehbaz appellant. It was the prosecution's own case that the said appellant had committed the murder of Aurang Zeb deceased on being instigated to do so on account of the earlier alleged murder of Najaf Mushtaq who was a Chacha Zad of the present appellant.
13. In this view of the matter, we would consider it unsafe to confirm the sentence of death awarded to Atif Shehbaz appellant which punishment of death is, consequently, not confirmed. He is instead directed to suffer imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C. He shall be allowed the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
14. Considering that the learned trial Judge had omitted to pass any order under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. We issued notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be directed to pay compensation to the heirs of the deceased. This notice was accepted by the learned counsel for the appellant and having heard the parties on this issue we direct Atif Shehbaz appellant to pay Rs,20,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased or to undergo six months' S.I. In default of payment of the same.
15. Murder Reference No.98 of 1993 is answered in the negative and Criminal Appeal No.218 of 1993 is disposed of in the above terms.
16. Before we part with this judgment, we would like to bring on record that we have noticed an increasing tendency amongst the learned trial Judges not to describe various relationships in correct and specific terms. The learned Presiding Officers use expressions such as "uncle, brother- in-law; cousin, nephew" etc. Such-like description of relationship hampers the correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances entailing a criminal case. We would, therefore, advise the Presiding Officers not to express the relationships in such-like vague terms and instead to define the same in more specific terms. For example, instead of describing somebody as an uncle of another we will expect the learned Presiding Officers to mention the relationship in more specific terms such as a paternal-uncle or a maternal-uncle etc. Or better still to describe the paternal- uncle, for example, as real brother of the father and so on.
17. While we are on the subject, we would also ask the learned Presiding Officers not to use alphabets like "I" or "0" while identifying various exhibits in a trial because such-like alphabets are likely to be misread as "One" and "Zero".
18. The Registrar of this Court is directed to send copies of this judgment to the learned Sessions Judges throughout the Province who shall in turn circulate the same to all the learned Presiding officers/Judicial Officers within their respective jurisdiction.
' Sentence of death not confirmed.