1. ' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---These criminal appeals by leave of this Court are directed against the judgment of conviction, dated 6-4-1995 of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Criminal Appeals Nos.22, 23 and 40 of 1992, Criminal Revision No,27 of 1992 and Confirmation Case No,6 of 1992, whereby the conviction of appellant-accused Rehan Ahmed and his death sentence under section 302, P.P.C. Were confirmed, and the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to appellants-accused Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam Khan were maintained.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that on 12-5-1988, Talib Hussain, a Preventive Officer Customs, left his house for duty at 7-30 a.m. Where he received a telephonic message that his son Jehangir had sustained knife injuries. He immediately reached his house where he was told by Muhalla people that his wife had taken the injured Jehangir to Jinnah Hospital. He rushed to the said hospital and then to many hospitals and ultimately reached Aga Khan Hospital where his younger brother Muhammad Ashraf met him and informed him that Jehangir had sustained injuries and was in the Emergency Ward. Muhammad Ashraf further informed him that his other son Muhammad Umair alias Tipu had been murdered by the assailants and his dead body was lying in his bed-room. He therefore, came back to his house and found the dead body of his son Muhammad Umair lying in the bed-room on the first floor with injuries on chest and abdomen. He then came back to Aga Khan Hospital where S.I.P. Wilayat Hussain recorded his statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. In respect of the above incident. The injured Jehangir, who was in a serious condition, was operated upon and given medical aid, but he was said to be in a serious condition of health and unable to make any statement, however, his statement was recorded on 25-8-1989 by police in pursuance whereof appellants Rehan Ahmed and Adnan Ansari were arrested on 29-5-1989 in presence of Mashirs A.S.-I. Nadim and Akram, and appellant Muhammad Aslam was arrested on 30-5-1989 in presence of Mashirs H.C. Rauf and Ghulam Akbar. At the pointation of accused-appellant Rehan Ahmed a dagger was recovered from a Nalla on 29-5-1988, and the motorcycle allegedly used by the appellants-accused was also recovered at the pointation of appellant-accused Rehan Ahmed from U.K. Square in presence of Mashirs H.C. Ghulam Akbar and Zaheer. After completion of usual formalities, the appellants-accused were sent up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Karachi East, ' The prosecution examined complainant Talib Hussain, P.W.1 (Exh.13) who produced his 154, Cr.P.C., statement (Exh.14), the inquest report of the dead body of deceased Muhammad Umair alias Tipu (Exh.15), and memo. Of the dead body (Exh.16), P.W.2 Mst. Rashida Begum, the mother of the deceased (Exh.17), P.W.3, Muhammad Jehangir, the injured brother of the deceased (Exh.18), P.W.4, Dr. Amanullah Shaikh (Exh.19), who conducted post-mortem examination upon Muhammad Umair deceased and produced the letter of the S.H.O. And post-mortem report (Exhs.20 and 21 respectively), P.W.5, Muhammad Ashraf, brother of the complainant (Exh.22), P.W.6, Ghulam Akbar, A.S.-I., who produced memo. Of arrest of Muhammad Aslam appellant accused, Mashirnama of recovery of dagger recovered at the pointation of the appellant accused Rehan Ahmed, and memo. Of recovery of motorcycle (Exhs.24 and 25 respectively), P.W.7 Muhammad Akram (Exh.26) who had registered the F.I.R. On the basis of 154, Cr.P.C. Statement of Talib Hussain, which was sent to him by S.H.O. Wilayat H. Shah, P.W.8 Muhammad Akram Saeed (Exh.32), a Magistrate in Karachi who had supervised the identification parade on 2-6-1988 and produced the letter of S.H.O. For holding parade (Exh.33) and identification parade report (Exh.34), P.W.9, Dr. Salman, who had treated and operated upon the injured P.W. Jehangir in Aga Khan Hospital and produced the clinical summary of the injured (Exh.40). The prosecution, after recording of evidence of the above P.Ws. Closed its side.
3. ' Thereafter, the appellants-accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein all of them denied the commission of the charged offence by stating that they had neither committed the murder of Muhammad Umair, nor had caused injuries to Jehangir. Appellant Rehan Ahmed denied the recovery of the dagger and of motorcycle at his pointation. All the appellants-accused stated that they were shown to the prosecution witnesses before the actual identification parade took place. They stated that they used to collect service charges from all the residents including the complainant when he was residing in U.K. Square Apartments, who often used to get . Annoyed due to which reason the appellants had been falsely implicated in the case. Appellant Adnan Ansari further stated that before the alleged incident, , he had got his right hand fractured and produced documents including X-Ray films. The appellants-accused did not examine themselves under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., nor did they produce any witness in their defence.
4. ' The trial Court convicted all the three accused-appellants under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced appellant Rehan Ahmed to death and appellant-accused Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam. To life imprisonment. Each one of them was also directed to pay fine of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) and in the event of default in payment of fine, to undergo R.I. For one year. All the appellants were also convicted under section 307, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs,50,000 and in case of default to undergo further R.I. For six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It was directed that in case the amount of fine realised, half of it should be paid to the L.Rs, of the deceased as compensation.
5. ' The appellants preferred Criminal Appeals Nos.22, 23 and 40 of 1992 against their conviction and sentences, and complainant filed Criminal Revision No,27 of 1992 for enhancement of the sentence of appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam from life imprisonment to death. A murder reference (Confirmation Case No,6 of 1992) was also sent to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to appellant Rehan Ahmed. The learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, vide its judgment, dated 6-4-1995, has confirmed the death sentence of appellant Rehan Ahmed and maintained the imprisonment for life awarded to appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam, hence these appeals.
6. ' Mr. K.M.A. Samdani, the learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeals Nos.133 and 134 of 1996, did not challenge the conviction of the appellants under section 302, P.P.C. And confined his arguments only to the sentence of death upheld in case of appellant Rehan Ahmed in Criminal Appeal No,134 of 1996. He contended that as the motive is obscure and shrouded in mystery, the sentence of death awarded to appellant Rehan Ahmed is unjustified. He further contended that the two Courts below should not have made discrimination in awarding death sentence to appellant Rehan Ahmed and life imprisonment to co-accused appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam on the basis of same evidence. He submitted that the perusal of evidence would show that the appellants and the family of the deceased were on friendly terms.
7. ' Mr. Javed Aziz Sindhu, the learned counsel for appellant Adnan Ansari in Criminal Appeal No,136 of 1992 submitted that the occurrence did not take place as stated by the prosecution, but ultimately he did not press for his acquittal and appeared to be satisfied with the sentence of life imprisonment upheld in the appeal in view of evidence on record. He also submitted that appellants Muhammad Aslam and Adnan Ansari have already undergone the sentence passed against them and have been released. However, he argued that this is not a fit case where sentence of appellants be enhanced, considering that two Courts below have given concurrent finding in respect of sentence.
8. ' Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad, learned counsel for the complainant-appellant in Criminal Appeal No,135 of 1996 and for respondents in Criminal Appeals Nos.133, 134 and 136 of 1996, argued that appellant Rehan Ahmed in Criminal Appeal No,134 of 1996 cannot seek reduction in sentence because normally death sentence is imposed for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. He submitted that under subsection (5) of section 367, Cr.P.C. If punishment other than the death is to be imposed, the Court, in the judgment, shall have to state the reasons as to why the sentence of death was not passed. He submitted that in the instant case the appellants went to the house of the complainant in daytime because they knew that latter would not be there and after having friendly talk with the deceased and his injured brother Jehangir, appellant Rehan Ahmed asked the deceased to take him to his room when the younger brother of the deceased, injured Jehangir, was asked to fetch drinking water for him and when he went to bring water, the appellant/accused Muhammad Aslam and Adnan Ansari also came there. Then appellant Rehan Ahmed caused injuries with dagger to deceased Muhammad Umair while the other co-accused/appellants caught hold of deceased Muhammad Umair, which injuries ultimately resulted his death and when Jehangir came back, he was also caught hold of by the appellants and was given injuries on his person, who remained in the Aga Khan Hospital in the state of unconsciousness for quite long time and had to be operated upon in an emergency on the very day. He submitted that all this would show the clear intention of the appellants to cause the death of Muhammad Umair, considering that appellant Rehan Ahmed came armed with a dagger while the two other appellants provided him motorcycle and accompanied him to the house of the deceased. He further submitted that appellants Muhammad Aslam and Adnan Ansari caught hold of the deceased and thereby facilitated Rehan Ahmed appellant to cause fatal injuries to deceased Muhammad Umair alias Tipu. He further submitted that there is no evidence to the effect that the appellants were entrusted with the job of collecting service charges from the deceased (in respect of U.K. Square Apartments where once the complainant used to reside). He further submitted that in the instant case the prosecution has not shown any motive, therefore, the question of providing the motive or its being obscure or shrouded in mystery would not arise at all. He also submitted the absence of motive would not be a mitigating circumstance'for not awarding capital punishment under the law. He has placed reliance upon Talib v. Crown (PLD 1959 Federal Court 42), Muhammad Sharif v. State 1991 SCMR 1622), Abdul Sattar v. Muhammad Anwar (PLD 1974 SC 266), Mushtaq Ahmed v. Siddiqullah (PLD 1975 SC 160), Saeed Gui v. The State (PLD 1992 Peshawar 40) and Muhammad Jehangir v.
9. State (1999 SCMR 2422). The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the appeal of appellant Rehan Ahmed be dismissed, maintaining the sentence passed by the two Courts below, and that the sentence of appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam be enhanced from life imprisonment to death.
10. ' Mr. K.M.A. Samdani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court stated that this is not a fit case for enhancement as pleaded by learned counsel Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad for complainant-appellant Talib Hussain in Criminal Appeal No,135 of 1996 because appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam have been released after serving out the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the two Courts below, who have expectancy of their lives since 6-2-1992, the date of judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Karachi East, and therefore, this Court, as per practice and procedure, may not impose death penalty upon appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam. He has placed reliance upon Labha v. State (1984 SCMR 1514).
11. ' Raja Abdul Ghafoor, the learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the State, submitted that neither the trial Court nor the High Court has assigned any reason for awarding lesser sentence to coaccused/appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam in respect of offence committed under section 302, P.P.C. He submitted that the intention to kill can be gathered from the seat of the injuries inflicted. He has placed reliance upon Mardan Ali v. Gulistan (1980 SCMR 889) and Piran Ditta v. The State (1993 SCMR 1934). He also submitted that there is no question of expectancy of life in the circumstances of the case, therefore, in case of appellants-accused Muhammad Aslam and Adnan Ansari, their sentence be enhanced to death.
12. ' So far the conviction of appellant Rehan Ahmed, same has not been challenged but only reduction in sentence from death to life is sought on the grounds that the motive could not be proved by the prosecution and that on the basis of the same evidence appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam have been awarded life imprisonment, therefore, no discrimination should have been made in respect of sentence to appellant Rehan Ahmed. We do not find substance and merit in the contention of the learned counsel for appellant Rehan Ahmed. It is true that in the instant case the prosecution has not shown/assigned any motive for the commission of crime but the absence of motive would not come in the way of the prosecution if there is A confidence- insipring evidence with regard to the commission of crime by the appellant and it would not deter the Courts from passing the normal sentence of death under section 302, P.P.C. The failure to show motive would not lead to any adverse inference. It may be pointed out that the motive is always in the mind of person who intends to take life of another, so it would be only in his knowledge, therefore, the failure on the part of the prosecution to show motive would not be fatal to its case. In the instant case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is strong, reliable and confidence- inspiring, which could not be challanged. So far the motive, which is not assigned in this case, same would not be a mitigating circumstance for reduction of the sentence of appellant Rehan Ahmed from death to life imprisonment. Reference may be made to Waris Ali v. State (1999 SCMR 1469).
13. The facts of Labha v. State (1984 SCMR 1514) cited by learned counsel for the appellant are different and distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. In the cited case, the death sentence of the accused was reduced as he was pardoned by the brother of the deceased so as to avoid further blood-shed. However, in the case in hand the conduct of appellant-accused Rehan Ahmed would show that he does not deserve leniency. He was known to and friendly with the family of the deceased. He went with the deceased aged 16/17 years to latter's room and inflicted fatal injuries on the left side of the chest and close to umbilicus with his dagger without any cause. He inflicted injuries to Jehangir, aged seven years, who when brought to the hospital was suffering from circulatory shock and respiratory distress due to stab injuries on left part of his chest. There were three injuries on the left part of the chest. The following injuries were noted:- "(i) A gaping wound in the third left intercostal space mid-clavicular line, 3.6 c.m. Long and bleeding profusely.
(ii) A gaping wound in the fourth left intercostal space mid-clavicular line just below the nipple, 3.3 c.m. Long and bleeding profusely.
(iii) A smaller superficial wound in the third left intercostal space anterior axillary line, 1.5 c.m. Long.
(iv) A tiny 0.25 c.m. Wound in the left chest posteriorly.
(v) Swelling and bruise over the left temple and eyebrow with no clinical evidence of a fracture."
14. ' The facts of the case Ali Hussain v. Mukhtar (1983 SCMR 806) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, are quite different and distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. In the cited case, the motive was obscure and it could not be positively proved that the deceased was stabbed just for refusing to stop seeing Ch. Barkatullah, M.N.A. From the same it was inferred by their lordships that there was something else which had actually enraged the accused to attack the deceased. So far the case of Liaqat Hussain v. Abdul Majid (1986 SCMR 1906), the prosecution had withheld important and relevant facts of the case, but in the instant case, it has not been shown or suggested that the prosecution had withheld any important and relevant fact from consideration of the Court. The case of Asghar Ali v. State (1987 SCMR 1344) is also of no help to the appellant because in that case the deceased had refused to return the dowry of the sister of the accused without any reason and the said conduct of the deceased was said to be the reason which led to the occurrence and in those circumstances, it was held that it was not a fit case for award of death penalty. In the instant case, appellant Rehan Ahmed alongwith appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam, went to the residence of the deceased on a motorcycle. The appellant Rehan Ahmed was armed with a dagger and asked the deceased to take him to his room on the first floor. The deceased was unarmed and helpless. He was caught hold of by appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam, when the appellants Rehan and Muhammad Aslam, when the appellant Rehan Ahmed mercilessly and cruelly inflicted stab wounds on the vital part .Of the deceased, which resulted in his death. In the circumstances, no leniency in award of normal sentence of death as provided by section 302, P.P.C. Can be shown. Both the Courts below have concurred in awarding the death sentence to appellant Rehan Ahmed and we find no justification to interfere with the said sentence because the Courts are required to do justice strictly in accordance with law and should not favour the culprit by awarding lesser punishment than the one prescribed by law. Their lordships in Muhammad Sharif v. State (1991 SCMR 1622 at 1627 and 1628) have observed that:-- ' "A Judge is required to do justice on each and every aspect strictly in accordance with law and should not mould the alternatives to favour the guilty. It is the Divine will that we must be firm and resolute to do justice whether it be detrimental to our own interests or the interest of those who are near and dear to us. Mercy is the attribute of God but we are warned not to allow that which is .Otherwise unlawful. Moreover, we should not show mercy to those who themselves are proved to have acted mercilessly."
15. In the instant case no mitigating circumference has been shown for award of lesser punishment than prescribed by law. Reference may be made to (i) Mst. Bismillah v. Muhammad Sabbar (1998 SCMR 1862), and (ii) Pervaiz v. State (1998 SCMR 1976). Consequently, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant Rehan Ahmed has no merit and, therefore, his appeal is dismissed.
16. ' So far the appeals of appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam, the same also are devoid of merits, considering that evidence against them is strong, reliable and confidence-inspiring, which could not be shaken in the cross-examination. The learned counsel for the appearing for appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam are themselves satisfied with the conviction and sentence passed against them and stated that they have served out the sentence. Consequently, same are dismissed.
17. ' So far the appeal of complainant/appellant Talib Hussain for enhancement of the sentence of Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam from life imprisonment to death, the prosecution evidence against the appellants is that they caught hold of the deceased and facilitated appellant Rehan Ahmed to give dagger blows to the deceased.
18. The principle of expectancy of life per se is not a valid ground for awarding lesser sentence in cases involving capital punishment. Reference may be made to Raheem Bakhsh v. Abdul Subhan (1999 SCMR 1190) and Maqbool Ahmed v. The State (1987 SCMR 1059). However, in the instant case appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam did come in the company of appellant Rehan Ahmed on a motorcycle and they called the deceased Tipu through his younger brother Jehangir and then followed appellant Rehan Ahmed and deceased Tipu on the first floor of the latter's room where they caught hold of the deceased while appellant Rehan Ahmed gave dagger blows on the vital parts of the body of the deceased, which resulted his death. In the present case, appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam have not caused fatal injuries to the deceased. Appellants Adnan Ansari and Muhammad Aslam also caused injuries to P.W. Jehangir, the younger brother of the deceased, who remained hospitalized in a very serious condition and was operated upon, therefore, the accusations made against the said appellants were quite independent and distinguishable from those against appellant Rehan Ahmed who caused fatal injuries to the deceased, hence Courts below awarded lesser sentence of life imprisonment to them, which appear to us to be justified in the circumstances of the case and does not call for interference by this Court. Reference may be made to the case of Waris Ali v. State (supra).
19. ' In the result, we do not find any merit and substance in Criminal Appeal No,135 of 1996, filed by complainant Talib Hussain for enhancement of sentence so also rest of the appeals. Consequently, all Criminal Appeals Nos.133 to 136 of 1996 stand dismissed.