' MUHAMMAD NASIM CHAUDHRY, J.---This appeal is directed against judgment dated 15-8-1988 passed by the Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trial No,1, Lahore whereby Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Zafar appellants were convicted and sentenced to death each on four counts and to fine of Rs,5,000 each on four counts or in default of its payment to undergo R.I. For a period of 2 years each on four counts; convicted and sentenced Nazar Muhammad, Muhammd Aslam and Gulzar Shah appellants to life imprisonment each on four counts and to fine of Rs,5,000 each on four counts or in default of its payment to further undergo R.I. For a period of two years each on four counts under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code; convicted and sentenced all the aforesaid five appellants to undergo R.I. For a period of two years each under section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. All the five appellants were directed to pay Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac) each to legal heirs of all the four deceased persons as compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in default of its payment to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. It is proper to express that due to the enforcement of the Presidential Amnesty Order, 1988 during the month of December, 1988 the sentences of death awarded to Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Zafar on each four counts have been converted to life imprisonment. Further, it is recorded that according to the information imparted by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sahiwal Nazar Muhammad appellant son of Masta expired on 2-2-1993.
3. The present occurrence took place at 6.00 p.m. On 12-8-1986 in Mauza Baseerupur, District Okara, wherein Muhamamd Rafique, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Afzal all sons of Sheikh Ahmad, resident of Railway Road, Baseerpur were murdered.
4. In this case, F.I.R. Exh.PF was recorded by Naveed Iqbal S.I./S.H.O. Police Station Baseerpur, District Okara on 12-8-1986 at 6.30 p.m. Who according to the reprot Exh.PW-1/B on summons Exh.PW-1/1 prepared by Abdul Qadir, A.S.I. Police Station Baseerupur PW-1 had expired on 18-2-1988.
5. The facts of the prosecution case are narrated in F.I.R. Exh.PF prepared by Naveed Iqbal S.I. (since deceased) at the instance of Muhammad Hanif complainant P.W.10, a brother of the deceased persons. It is narrated in the F.I.R. That his brothers Muhamamd Rafique and Mhammad Aslam (both deceased) plied their Wagon No,LEP 7575 from Baseerupur to village Parmanand.
Muhammad Rafique deceased was the driver while Muhammad Aslam deceased worked as the cleaner. Muhammad Aslam and Muhamamd Javed both sons of Nazar Muhammad Kharal were also maintaining the wagon on which Muhammad Zafar was the driver and Muhammad Javed was the cleaner. On that date (12-8-1986) at 3.00 p.m. Due to the availing of the wagon time, the dispute arose between Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Aslam deceased persons on the one side and Muhammad Zafar and Muhammad Javed appellants sons of Nazar Muhammad on the other side at wagon Adda Baseerupur while he (complainant) was also present there. His brothers Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Aslam deceased went to Mauza Paramanand after boarding the passengers in the wagon. Muhammad Zafar and Muhammad Javed appellants were annoyed. They issued the threats that in future they (deceased persons) would not be in a position to take away the wagon. At about 6.00 p.m. Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Aslam deceased persons arrived back from Mauza Parmanand. Close to the National Bank Branch near the Wagon Adda, Nazar Muhammad appellant armed with hatchet, Muhammad Aslam appellant and his 'Behnoi' Gulzar Shah appellant each armed with Sota as well as Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Zafar appellants each armed with 'Khanjar' emerged from the shop and attacked Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Aslam deceased persons who raised the alarm and started running towards the East on the Pacca road. The appellants overpowered them in front of Railway Station. Nazar Muhammad appellant inflicted the hatchet blow from the blunt-side on the head of Muhammad Rafique deceased who fell on the ground and in that position Muhammad Zafar appellant inflicted the 'Khanjar' blows in his left flank, right arm and right thigh. He (complainant) alongwith his son Akarm P.W.9, his Behnoi Rashid Ahmad as well as his brothers Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Afzal (also deceased of the case) stepped ahead to rescue Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Aslam deceased persons. Within their sight Gulzar Shah appellant gave the edge
(Hujj) with his Sota on Muhammad Aslam deceased who fell down. Muhammad Javed gave the 'Khanjar' blows on his right front chest, left upper arm and left arm-pit. Muhammad Zafar appellant inflicted the 'Khanjar' blows on the chest, abdomen and left arm of Muhammad Sharif deceased.
Muhammad Javed appellant inflicted the 'Khanjar' blows on the left front chest, left flank and abdomen. He (complainant P.W.10) his son Akram P.W.9 and his Behnoi Rashid Ahmad P.W. (not produced) did not go ahead as they were afraid. His four brothers Muhammad Rafique, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Afzal expired at the spot. Leaving them there he went to Police Station Baseerupur and got recorded F.I.R. Exh.PF. Naveed Iqbal S.H.O. (since deceased) went to the place of occurrence who took into possession the dead bodies of Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Aslam. He prepared the respective injury statements and the inquest reports pertaining to the deceased persons. He handed over the dead bodies to Muhammad Ali Constable P.W.6 who removed them to Civil Hospital, Havaili Lakha for post-mortem examination and thereafter delivered the blood-stained clothes of each of the deceased before Naveed lqbal SHO. The aforesaid SHO took into possession the blood-stained earth from those place Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Sharif deceased were lying and from Wagon No,LEP 7575 wherein the dead body of Muhammad Aslam was lying. He prepared the respective memo. Attested by Atta Muhammad P.W.7 and Amjad Ali P.W., (given up). He sealed the bloodstained earth in different four parcels. Naveed Iqbal S.H.O.
Got prepared site plans Exh.PA and Exh.PA/1 from Nisar Ahmad Drafstman Baseerpur P.W.2 on which the notes and drawings with black ink are in his hand and those in red ink are in the hand of the S.H.O.
6. The appellants namely Nazar Muhammad, Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Zafar were arrested on 13-8-1986 while Gulzar Shah appellant was arrested on 3-9- 1986. While under police arrest Nazar Muhammad appellant led to the recovery of hatchet P-15 from his house on 23-8-1986 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PBB. On the same date Muhammad Zafar appellant led to the recovery of blood-stained 'Chhuri' P-1 from his house which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PAA when Exh.P-1 was sealed in a parcel. On 23-8- 1986 Muhammad Javed appellant led to the recovery of blood-stained 'Chhuri' P-2 from his house which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PZ and was sealed in a parcel. Muhammad Aslam appellant led to the recovery of Sota P-16 from his house which was taken into possession vide memo Exh.PY. Both the sealed parcels were handed over by Naveed Iqbal S.H.O. To Muhammad Shafi A.S.I. P.W.4 for keeping in the Malkhana. On 8-9-1986 Gulzar Shah appellant led to the recovery of Sota P.3 from his house situated in Mauza Phullan Toli which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PCC. All these memos were attested by Allah Ditta P.W.8 and Munir Ahmad P.W. (not produced).
7. Muhammad Shafi A.S.I. P.W.4 handed over the four sealed parcels containing the blood-stained earth and two sealed parcels containing the bloodstained 'Chhuris' on 27-8-1986 to Sabir Hussain Constable who delivered the same intact in the office of the Chemical Examiner Lahore.
8. Dr. Muhammad Fakhar Ali Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Havaili Lakha, District Okara conducted the postmortem examination on the respective dead bodies of Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Rafique on 13-8-1986 who were identified by their relative Atta Muhammad P.W.7.
9. On 13-8-1986 this medical witness conducted the post-mortem examination at 9.30 a.m. On the dead body of Muhammad Afzal. He found seven injuries on his person. According to him the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries Nos.1 to 5 which were dangerous and were sufficient to cause death. He issued carbon copy Exh.PB of the post-mortem report and carbon copy Exh.PB/1 of the diagram of injuries.
10. On 13-8-1986 at 10-50 a.m. P.W.1 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Sharif. He found three injuries on his person. According to him the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage caused by the injuries. He issued carbon copy Exh.PC of the post-mortem of the post-mortem report and carbon copy Exh.PC/1 of the diagram showing he injuries.
11. On the same date 11-45 a.m. This medical witness conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Aslam and found six injuries on his person. According. To him the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage caused by injuries. He issued carbon copy Exh. PC of the post-mortem report and carbon copy Exh.PC/1 of the diagram showing the injuries.
12. On the same date at 11.45 a.m. This medical witness conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Aslam and found six injuries on his person. According to him the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage caused by the injuries. He issued carbon copy Exh.PD/1 of the post-mortem examination report and carbon copy Exh.PD/2 of the diagram showing the location of injuries.
13. On 13-8-1986 at 12.45 a.m. This Medical Officer conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Rafique and found six injuries on his person. He expressed that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries. He issued carbon copy Exh.PE of the post-mortem report and carbon copy Exh.PE/1 of the diagram showing the location of injuries.
14. According to the reports Exh.PFF, Exh. PGG, Exh. PHH and Exh. PJJ the earth taken into possession from four places was stained with blood. According to reports Exhs. PMM, Exh. PNN, Exh.POO and Exh.PSS the earth taken into possession from four places was stained with human blood. According to report Exh. PKK and Ddi.PLL the 'Chhuri said to have been got recovered by Muhammad Javed appellant and the Chhuri' said to have been got recovered by Muhammad Zafar appellant were stained with blood. According to reports Exh. PQQ and Exh. PRR both the aforesaid 'Chhuries' were stained with human blood.
15. After completing the investigation the police submitted the challan before the trial Court. The appellants namely Nazar Muhammad, Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Aslam and Gulzar Shah were charged under section 148 and under section 302/149 Pakistan Penal Code on four counts for the alleged murder of Muhammad Rafique, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Afzal deceased persons. They pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried.
During the trial the aforesaid P.Ws., stood in the witness-box and supported the prosecution case in clear terms. Abdul Qadir P.W.1 was entrusted with summons Exh.P.W. I / 1 to get served Naveed Iqbal S.I./S.H.O. Police Station Baseerpur and after making the effort in the matter he gave his report Exh.PW-1/B that the aforesaid S.I./S.H.O. Had died on 18-2-1988. The prosecution was allowed to produce the secondary evidence in the matter vide order dated 7-8-1988. The evidence of motive has been furnished by Muhammad Hanif complainant P.W.10. The ocular evidence comprises the statements of Muhammad Akram P.W.9 and his father Muhammad Hanif complainant P.W.10, a brother of all the four deceased persons. The medical evidence comprises the statement of Dr. Muhammad Fakhar Ali P.W.3 who conducted the post-mortem examination on the aforesaid four dead bodies. On Court question he deposed that an abrasion could be caused with the edge of the Sota P3 but not linear. When examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Zafar and Gulzar Shah appellants deposed about their non- participation in the occurrence and denied the fact that they were running any wagon. Nazar Muhammad appellant (at present deceased) and Muhammad Zafar appellant deposed that four days before the occurrence, due to the previous enmity, they had injured Muhammad Hanif P.W.
Who bore the grudge against them and that the four deceased persons attacked upon them when they had to injure them with knife and 'Chhuri' in self-defence. All the appellants did not appear under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on oath in their defence. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf Medical Officer Tehsil Hospital, Dispalpur D.W.1 examined Nazar Muhammad appellant on 14-8-1986 at 2.00 p.m. And found five injuries with blunt weapon on his person. He issued carbon copy Exh.PQ of the medico-legal report and carbon copy Exh.PQ/1 of diagram showing the location of the injuries. This medical witness examined Muhammad Zafar appellant on 14-8-1986 at 2.15 p.m.
And found two injuries on his person caused sharp-edged pointed weapon. He issued carbon copy Exh. DR of the medico-legal report and carbon copy Exh.DR of the medico legal report and carbon copy Exh.DR/1 of the diagram showing the location of the injuries.
16. Muhammad Javed appellant submitted school leaving certificate Exh. DS and medico-legal report Exh.DT pertaining to Muhammad Hanif complainant P.W.
17. After hearing the parties learned trial Court gave the weight to the motive, occular evidence, recovery of blood-stained 'Chhuris' and medical evidence. Consequently the appellant were convicted as narrated above. Hence this appeal which has been resisted by the State.
18. First of all we would like to dispose of this appeal to the extent of Gulzar Shah appellant. In this respect the contentions of the learned counsel for Gulzar Shah appellant are that he was a Zimindar by profession living in village Phullan Toli at a distance of seven miles from the place of occurrence who is the son-in-law of Nazar Hussain appellant, that there is no allegation of motive against him to the effect that he quarrelled before the actual occurrence resulting in the murder of four deceased, that the infliction of the edge of Sota attributed to him has been falsified by the medical witness (P.W.3) and that he has simply been roped in due to his relationship with the remaining appellants so that he is not in a position to help them.
19. On the contrary learned State Counsel laid the emphasis that the case of Gulzar Shah appellant is not divisible keeping in view the occular evidence. We hold the view that Gulzar Shah appellant is entitled to be acquitted who seems to have been falsely involved. Admittedly he is a Zimindar by profession and is not running the wagons which could be a source of dispute between him and the deceased person. No doubt he is the son-in-law of Nazar Hussain appellant and the 'Behnoi' of the remaining appellants Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Zafar, yet this aspect of the matter is not enough to connect him with the occurrence without independent proof and corroboration to make him liable thereof. The opinion of the Medical Officer on Court question was that abrasion could be caused with the edge of Sota but not a linear abrasion. The role of giving the edge (Hujj) with Sota and issuance of threats was attributed to Gulzar Shah appellant.
The role or Lalkara is simply proverbial. The medical evidence is in conflict with the role attributed to him. The grain is to be sifted from the chaff as the theory of indivisibility of evidence is not applicable these days. We are of the view that Gulzar Shah has been falsely involved in view of his delicate relationship with the remaining appellants. We, therefore, accept this appeal to the extent of Gulzar Shah appellant, setaside the same to his extent and acquit him. Gulzar Shah appellant is present on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and surety, discharged.
20. Nazar Shah appellant has died on 2-2-1993 in view of the information imparted to this Court by the Superintendent Central Jail, Sahiwal vide his Letter No,13610, dated 10-12-1997 forming part of the appellant record. As such this appeal to the extent of Nazar Hussain appellant has become infructuous.
21. With respect of the case of Muhammad Javed. Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Zafar appellants the contentions of their learned Advocate are that the motive has not been established and rather four days before the occurrence Muhammad Hanif had a quarrel with Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Zafar appellants who was injured and was medically examined when medico-legal report, Exh.DT, was issued. According to him the motive has not been independently established to the effect that at 3.00 p.m. Any occurrence took place later on resulting in the inception of the gruesome and sensational murders of the four brother namely Muhammad Rafique, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Afzal. According to him the deceased persons attacked Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Zafar appellants who were medically examined when medico-legal reports Exh.DQ and Exh.DR were issued qua Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Zafar appellants. He maintained that there was no dispute of running the wagons. We do not agree with him. As rightly pointed out by the learned State Counsel the statement of Dr. Muhammad Ashraf D.W.1 who medically examined Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Zafar appellants and issued the relevant medico-legal reports Exh.DQ and Exh. DR has completely shattered this stand of the appellants by deposing that in his opinion the injuries on the persons of Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Zafar could not have been caused on 12-8-1986. It is not an intentional concession as stressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. This part of the statement of this Medical Officer (D.W.1) has defused the stand taken by the appellants. The statement of Muhammad Hanif complainant P.W.10 has established that the parties were running the wagons, to contradict which no evidence has been produced in defence and that some hours before the actual occurrence there was dispute between both the parties for the availability and utilization of time regarding the plying of wagons from Baseerpur to Mauza Parmanand. It can safely be expressed that there is the common complaint of the public that the transporters effect the overloading in the wagons, misbehave with the passengers, make the over-charging, direct the passengers, to sit on the roofs; etc. Etc. Likewise it is a matter of common observation that even though the arrangements are effected for the plying of the wagons on the settled timing there is the jealousy between different transporters running the individual business of transport initiating the disputes of the instant nature now and then. This all happens due to the fact that even though greed is a curse there is no end to it. The dispute arose between both the parties at 3.00 p.m. And immediately on the return of two deceased persons from Mauza Parmanand the occurrence took place. The fact of receiving the injuries four days before the Muhammad Hanif complainant P.W.10 regarding which medico-legal report Exh.DT has been produced does not stand established because medico-legal report Exh. DT has not been proved by the Medical Officer who is said to have issued the same after his examination and even this document was not put to Muhammad Hanif when he stood in the witness-box as P.W.10. We would be glossing over an important aspect of the matter by expressing that the murder of one person can be without motive while the murder of four persons cannot be without motive and in the instant case motive could be nothing else than the dispute which arose about three hours before the occurrence about the timings of the running of the buses. Consequently, while dealing the motive which stands established, the plea of self-defence raised by Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Zafar has also been dealt with and it is held that the same is not available to them especially when Dr. Muhammad Ashraf D.W.1 has specifically, deposed that Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Zafar appellants did not receive the injuries on 12-8-1986.
22. The ocular evidence has been challenged on the ground that even though the occurrence took place in a populated area only Muhammad Hanif complainant P.W.10 I(brother of all the four deceased persons) and his son Muhammad Akram P.W.9 stood in the witness-box and supported the prosecution case. It was added that they being the interested persons were also inimical whose four close relative lost their lives and without corroboration from any independent person of the area especially when the occurrence took place near wagon stand the charge framed against the appellants has not been established. We hold the view that the reasoning adopted by the trial Court is balanced as well as confidence inspiring. Learned counsel for the State has rightly pointed out that during these days when the gulf between different sections and citizens in the country is widening the general public always avoid and show the apathy towards becoming to eye- witnesses in such sensational 4 cases of gruesome murders. It is not a case where one person lost the life. In this occurrence four persons lost their lives and whole of the apisode must have been branded upon the respective soul of Muhammad Hanif complainant P.W.10 and his son Muhammad Akram P.W.9. The occurrence took place on 12-8-1986 at 6.00 p.m. i.e, much before the sun set and there cannot be the chance of error in the identification of the assailants. The F.I.R. Was properly lodged. In the circumstances of the matter when four persons lost their lives, it cannot be expected that there could be the chance of substitution. It was not an ordinary occurrence. The presence of the P.Ws. At the spot was justified in view of the business being carried on by the deceased persons and the fact that some hours before the actual occurrence, the dispute had arisen which was the motive of the occurrence. Muhammad Akram P.W.9 and Muhammad Hanif P.W.10 have stood the test of cross-examination. The defence has not been able to shatter their statements through the weapon of cross-examination. In the circumstances, there is every justification to rely upon the statements of the eye-witnesses and we pass an .
23. The recovery of blood-stained 'Chhuri' P-1 attributed to Muhammad Zafar appellant and the recovery of blood-stained 'Churri' P-2 at the instance of Muhammad Javed appellant is a strong circumstance in favour of the prosecution for the purpose of the corroboration to the occular account.
24. The medical evidence comprising the statement of Dr. Muhammad Fakhar Ali Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Havaili Lakha P.W.3 is also a corroborative piece of evidence. Even though the query was made by us in the matter to narrate the reasoning to make us disbelieve this part of the evidence, learned counsel for the appellants expressed his inability to do so. He had no reasoning to make us hold that the medical evidence is devoid of legal force. The injuries found on the person of the four deceased persons were in consonance with the statements of the eye-witnesses and, thus, the medical evidence is not in conflict with the statements of the eye-witnesses.
24. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to make us hold that F.I.R., was registered with deliberations. It was a gruesome occurrence wherein four persons were murdered. It can safely be expressed that no person in the area including the police would have dared to go astray from the facts and from all that had actually occurred.
25. With our aforesaid reasoning, we hold that the prosecution has established the charge framed against the aforesaid three appellants. We do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same to the extent of Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Zafar appellants.