SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---The appellant Mursalin alias Denni and Shaukat acquitted co-convict were tried by an Additional Sessions Judge at Chiniot on charges under section 302/353/34, P.P.C. For having committed the murders of Constable Sarang deceased and Muhammad Iqbal deceased and also for using criminal force to deter the police officials from performing their official duty. Vide judgment, dated 15-7-1992 the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant and Shaukat guilty on the charge under section 302, P.P.C. And thus, they were convicted and sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs,30,000 each or in default thereof to suffer further R.I. For 3 years each.
In the event of recovery of fine, the same was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.
On the charge under section 353, P.P.C., both the appellant and Shaukat were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. For a term of 2 years each.
2. Appellant Mursalin assailed his conviction through a jail appeal while Shaukat filed a separate appeal and the case was also referred by the Additional Sessions Judge under section 374, Cr.P.C.
Vide judgment, dated 5-7-1995, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by Shaukat, but the appeal preferred by the appellant Mursalin was dismissed and the murder reference to the extent of the appellant was answered in the affirmative. The appellant then invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of a petition seeking leave to appeal and vide orders, dated 28-5-1997 the leave was granted by this Court on the question of sentence.
3. The occurrence resulting into the death of deceased Constable Sarang and Iqbal took place on 18-11-1990 at about 10.00 p.m. On the bridge of a watercourse within the area of Chak No,202 at a distance of 17 miles from Police Station Bhawana in District Jhang. Jan Muhammad Inspector sent the statement about the occurrence to the police station where the formal F.I.R. Was recorded. Jan Muhammad complainant stated that on the fateful day at about 10.00 p.m. He alongwith Constables Sarang Khan deceased. Manzoor Hussain and Sajjad Hussain and one Allah Yar resident of Chak No,262 were patrolling the area in a wagon, which was bring driven by Allah Ditta.
The conductor of the wagon Muhammad Iqbal was also acompanying the police party. According to the complainant as soon as their vehicle reached the metalled road between Bangla Khairwala and Gugh Chowk near the bridge on the watercourse, they noticed that towards the left side of the road, 2 persons armed with lethal weapons were standing and in the light of the vehicle, the complainant and the police party identified one of them Mursalin alias Denni. Jan Muhammad stopped there and in a loud voice disclosed his identity to the said persons and asked them to surrender alongwith their weapons. The police party consisting of other constables were alighting from the vehicles when appellant Mursalin allegedly fired a shot from his 12 bore gun hitting Sarang Constable on his chest. The other companion of the appellant, who was not known to the complainant, also fired a shot hitting Iqbal conductor on his back and another pellet from the same shot also hit left thigh of Sarang Constable. The complainant taking the arms of Sarang Constable took up position and fired 4 shots. Manzoor Hussain Constable also fired 2 shots, but all the 6 shots did not hit the appellant and his companion, who after taking shelter in the bridge,disappeared in the darkness of the night. According to Jan Muhammad, he knew Mursalin, but could not identify his companion.
4. To substantiate its case the prosecution relied upon ocular testimony furnished by Jan Muhammad complainant P.W.14, who was heading the police patrol party and 2 other constables, who were accompanying him, namely, Sajjad Hussain P.W.11 and Manzoor Hussain P.W.12. The prosecution then sought to corroborate the ocular testimony by furnishing Waj Takkar evidence and extra-judicial confession. Ghulam Muhammad P.W.2 while he was returning from Pansra to his village on a bicycle at about 10.00 p.m., came across appellant Mursalin and his companion, who were armed with guns. The witness asked them why they were running whereupon he was informed that there was a clash with the police party near the bridge of the watercourse. The appellant also told the witness that they had fired at the police party and had caused injuries to the police officials. According to the prosecution case, both the accused made extrajudicial confession before Mumtaz P.W.3 and Wali Muhammad P.W.4. The appellant made a clean breast of the part played by him in the occurrence. The medical evidence in this case also corroborates the prosecution version as to the use of the fire-arm and their nature of injuries received by the two deceased persons.
5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the State, we have carefully perused the entire evidence on record and we are of the view that the ocular testimony in this case is above board and inspires confidence and the same also stands corroborated by the other features of the case, such as Waj Takkar evidence and the extra-judicial confession. Both these types of evidence corroborate each other and, thus, the prosecution successfully brought home guilt to the appellant.
6. The next question falling for determination on the basis of which leave was granted was to consider the quantum of sentence. We have been unable to find out any mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant. The appellant in a desperate manner took law into his own hands and mercilessly murdered Sarang Khan and Muhammad Iqbal deceased by attacking the police party while it was patrolling the area in discharge of its official duty. Such commission of crime, in our view, needs deterrent punishment and we do not find any ground to award lesser penalty in this case. According to the learned trial Judge, who also saw the previous record of the appellant, he was a hardened criminal, therefore, it is a fit case for the award of death penalty, which is the normal sentence under section 302, P.P.C. Resultantly, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.