' ZAFAR PASHA CHAUDHRY, J.--- Murder Reference No.246 of 1996, Criminal Appeal No.782 of 1996 as well as Criminal Revision No.344 of 1996 have been taken up together to be disposed of through this common judgment, as all the three arise out of single judgment, dated 12-9-1996 passed by Mr. Fayyaz Hameed Qureshi, learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, whereby the accused appellant Muhammad Yar was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to death. He was also ordered to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Muhammad Junaid Ahmad.
2. The prosecution case in brief as revealed from the F.I.R. Lodged by Muhammad Akram P.W.3, is that the complainant Muhammad Akram alongwith his brother Muhammad Junaid was proceeding towards his house on 2-1-1994 at 11-15 a.m. After taking a round of his fields. When they reached the bridge of Shahpur Canal, Muhammad Yar appellant while arming himself with pistol was sitting in ambush. On seeing Muhammad Junaid he raised a Lalkara that he will not be spared, simultaneously he fired a straight shot hitting Muhammad Junaid on his abdomen. He fired a second shot hitting his right thigh. Muhammad Junaid fell down, thereafter, the appellant kept on firing, injuring his left arm, right knee and right calf. The incident was witnessed by Haji Muhammad Yar P.W.4 and Haji Nabi Bakhsh P.W.S. The accused thereafter, fled away.
' The motive was stated to be that on the morning of the incident Muhammad Junaid deceased had exchanged abuses with the appellant and he also gave him slaps. Muhammad Yar appellant felt insulted and in order to take revenge of the insult, he mounted a murderous assault on the deceased. After the occurrence the deceased was removed to the hospital, where his statement was recorded by Jahan Khan, S.-I. On the same day i.e. 2-1-1994 at 12-30 p.m. i.e. Just after 45 minutes.
3. On the same day i.e. 2-1.1994 at 11-45 a.m. The injured was examined by Dr. Abdul Rehman P.W.1 and he observed the following injuries:--
(1) A fire-arm entry wound 1 x 1 c.m. Inner side of front of left forearm upper part.
(2) A fire-arm exit wound 1 x 1 c.m. Inner back of left fore-arm middle part 10 c.m. Below injury No.l.
(3) A fire-arm entry wound 1 x 1 c.m. Mid line epigastric area.
(4) A fire-arm exit wound 1-1/2 x 1 c.m. On right back lumber leve, 3 c.m. From the back bone.
(5) A fire-arm entry wound 1 x 1/2 c.m. On right iliac crest, 3 c.m. Behind anterio superior iliac spine.
(6) A fire-arm exit wound 2 x 1-1/2 c.m. Upper glutealarea outer spect.
(7) A fire-arm entry wound 1 x 1 c.m. Front of right thigh middle part 15 c.m. Above right knee.
(8) A fire-arm entry wound 1 x 1 c.m. Just below right knee cap front inner aspect.
(9) A fire-arm entry wound 1-1/2 x 1 c.m. Outer back of right leg middle part.
' All the injuries had been caused with fire-arm. Unfortunately the injured Muhammad Junaid succumbed to the injuries on the next day i.e. 3-1-1994 and Dr. Muhammad Iftikhar P.W.2 conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. He noted the substance the same injuries which were described under twelve items. The injuries had been caused with fire-arm and the death was result of accumulative effect of all the injuries which were ante-mortem and had been caused within a period of 24 hours.
4. The investigation in this case was conducted by Jahan Khan, S.-I. P.W.12 and Khan Amir P.W.13.
After usual investigation and fulfilling the necessary formalities, the appellant was sent up to face trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, who after holding the trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as noted above.
5. The prosecution in support of its case examined 13 witnesses, out of them Muhammad Akram P.W.3, Haji Muhammad Yar P.W.4 and Haji Nabi Bakhsh P.W.5 furnished the eye-witness account of the occurrence. Muhammad Akram P.W.3 reiterated the statement already made by him in F.I.R.
And stated that within his view the appellant inflicted fire-arm injuries from his pistol, as a result of which he succumbed. P.W.4 and P.W.5 also made statements absolutely identical and in line with the statement made by Muhammad Akram complainant. All the three P.Ws. Fully implicated the appellant and described the incident as noted above.
6. Jahan Khan P.W.12 took into possession five empties of .32 bore pistol from the spot vide memo.
Exh.P.F. Muhammad Aslam P.W.6 attested the recovery of pistol P.2 from the Dera of appellant which was taken into possession vide memo. P.G. The empties as well as pistol were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and it was found that crime-empties of .30 bore pistol Mark "C-1" to "C- 4" had been fired from the pistol recovered from the appellant. The learned trial Judge, therefore, relied upon the testimony of eye-witnesses because nothing could be pointed out by the defence to discredit them. Neither of the witnesses had any enmity or illwill to falsely implicate the appellant, their statements inspired confidence and were trustworthy because no attempt has been made to implicate any other person as accused although five fire-arm injuries were found on the person of the deceased. The statements cf the witnesses were supported by the evidence of motive as well as medical evidence. Above all the prosecution version receives credible support from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory which was positive as according to it the pistol recovered at the instance of appellant found matched with crime-empties secured from the place of occurrence. The prosecution, thus, proved the case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant although initially made an attempt to argue that witnesses were related to the deceased and they in fact had not witnessed the occurrence but when confronted that the occurrence took place within the vicinity of the village which could not be unwitnessed and that the matter was reported with extreme promptitude and also that no attempt was made to rope in any other person except the accused, although same could conveniently be done in view of large number of injuries on the person of the deceased, the learned counsel opted not to assail the conviction, however, argued with vehemence that imposition of extreme penalty of death is neither proper nor justified.
8. In support of his arguments much stress has been laid on the fact that even according to the prosecution itself, quarrel occurred in between the appellant and the deceased and also abuses were exchanged. The appellant who is respectable Zamindar of the locality was given slaps.
According to the learned Counsel the insult and disgrace meted out to the appellant was carried by him up to the time of incident, in fact the same kept on boiling in his mind and he under the extreme insult and disgrace proceeded to inflict a fire-arm injuries on the person of the deceased with vengeance. The appellant was not in a proper frame of mind because the deceased had committed access vis-a-vis the appellant, therefore, murder was committed under heat of passion or anguish. In view of these circumstances, imposition of extreme penalty of death would be rather excessive.
9. We have carefully assessed and weighed the plea raised by the learned counsel but have not been able to persuade ourselves to accede to the same. The dispute in between the two took place in the morning whereas the occurrence took place at 11-45 a.m. i.e. At least two or two and a half hours after the earlier incident. During this interregnum the appellant came back from the fields, went to his house, picked up pistol and thereafter, sat in ambush to intercept the deceased. When the deceased approached near him, he resorted to straight firing on him and emptied almost all the bullets. The morning incident to our mind does not in any manner provide or furnish any sort of mitigating or extenuating circumstance calling for imposition of lesser penalty. Such a triffling incident cannot be treated or accepted as an extenuating circumstance to justify the imposition of lessor penalty. We, therefore, repel the contention raised by the learned counsel. The prosecution has discharged its onus beyond any doubt by furnishing reliable ocular account, medical evidence, evidence of motive which is supported by the report from Forensic Science Laboratory.
The conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby upheld and maintained. The Criminal Appeal No.782 of 1996 as such is dismissed.
10. For the reasons recorded above the Criminal Revision No.344 of 1996 also dismissed.
11. Murder Reference is answered in affirmative.
Sentence of death is confirmed.