SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgments of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 16-3-2001, passed in Criminal Appeal No,14 of 1998 and Jail Appeal No,15 of 1998.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Hafiz Wazir Ahmad (P.W. 10) lodged F.I.R. (Exh.P.B/1) with Police Station Fatehpur, alleging therein that about 10/12 years back he settled in Fatehpur Town leaving his previous residence at Basti Laghari, Police Station Vhova, and started his business as a watchmaker in Fatehpur. He was living in a rented house, and in the Chaubara of adjacement shop to the rented house Gulzar Ahmad appellant was also living as a tenant. Gulzar Ahmad was dealing in bamboo business. On 1-12-1996, the complainant left the residence for his shop leaving behind his wife, mother, his son Izharul Haq aged about 7 years, daughters Mst. Shakila aged about 5 years and Mst. Amara aged about 1-1/2 years. When at about 2-30 p.m. He returned, his wife informed him that Izharul Haq son and Mst. Shakila daughter had left the house at about 1-30 p.m.
And had not returned till then upon which the complainant started to search the children and during this process he met one Habibullah and Rana Abdul Jabbar (P.W.9), who told him that they had seen Gulzar Ahmad accued in a Toyota Car bearing No,7665/L.I. Of reddish colour which was being driven by Imran and going towards Chowk Azam taking away both the children. In spite of his best efforts the complainant could not trace out his children. It was alleged that Gulzar Ahmad and Muhammad Imran, Taxi Driver had taken away both the children with the intention to kill them.
3. The motive as alleged in the F.I.R. Is that a few days earlier to the occurrence, Gulzar Ahmad accused had warned the complainant to forbid his children to come to his house as they used to break household articles and threatened that if his direction was not complied with they would be done to death and for this reason his children were abducted.
4. After registration of the case under section 364-A, P.P.C. The complainant got recorded his supplementary statement wherein he added that number of the car was incorrectly given by him as 7665/L.I. Whereas the correct number was 6576/L.I. And that he also missed the name of Muhammad Tufail accused, who, as informed by the P.Ws. Was sitting in the front seat of the car and was holding Mst. Shakila on his chest and shoulder, while Gulzar Ahmad accused was sitting in the rear seat with a bundle (Gathri) on the right side of his abdomen and that the aforesaid P.Ws.
Were standing at Adda Fatehpur when they saw the car going towards Chowk Azam.
5. During the investigation it was discovered that Gulzar Ahmad appellant killed both the minor children, who buried their dead bodies at a distant place. The charge was accordingly amended and sections 302/377/201, P.P.C. And sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were added.
6. Both the accused were found guilty. During investigation, according to the police, Gulzar Ahmad appellant disclosed that Izharul Haq was killed by the fire of pistol which suddenly triggered during cleaning and then the accused wrapped his dead body in a buhdle; the accused after pressing the neck of Mst. Shakila Bibi killed her. The appellant got recovered a pistol of .30 bore alongwith five lives bullets and also a licence in his name.
7. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted challan. The accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined 13 witnesses.
8. The trial Court vide its judgment dated p-3-1998 convicted the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. Read with sections 6 and 7(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced him to death on two counts, under section 364-A, P.P.C. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on two counts, under section 377, P.P.C. He was sentenced to 10 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,1,00,000, or in default of payment of fine further two years' R.I. Under section 201, P.P.C. He was sentenced to suffer 7 years R.I.
On two counts with fine of Rs,1,00,000 on two counts, or in default of payment of fine, further two years' R.I. On two counts.
9. Muhammad Tufail co-accused was convicted under section 364-A, P.P.C. And sentenced to 7 years' R.I. Under section 201, P.P.C. He was convicted and sentenced to 7 years' R.I. On two counts.
With fine of Rs,1,00,000 on two counts, or in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years'
R.I. On two counts. The sentences of both the accused were ordered to run concurrently and the sentences in default of payment of fine were directed to run consecutively.
10. Muhammad Tufail co-accused filed Criminal Appeal No,14 of 1998, while Gulzar Ahmad appellant filed Criminal Appeal No,15 of 1998 against their conviction. The State also filed Criminal Appeal No,20 of 1998 for enhancement of sentence of Muhammad Tufail accused, while the learned trial Court sent Murder Reference No,7 of 199.8 under section 25(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for confirmation of death sentence of Gulzar Ahmad appellant. The learned High Court vide judgment dated 16-3-1999, dismissed the appeal of the appellant and maintained his conviction and death sentence, whereas the appeal filed by Muhammad Tufail co-accused was accepted on the ground of benefit of doubt and he was acquitted. The appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence of Muhammad Tufail co-accused was dismissed.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contended that the Courts below had not considered the evidence in its proper perspective and that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case and further that there is no ocular evidence about the commission of the crime against the appellant.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of evidence on record, and he supported the impugned judgment.
13. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their assistance. In this case the prosecution has collected trustworthy and reliable evidence of Imran Asif, taxi driver (P.W.8), Rana Abdul Jabbar (P.W.9), Hafiz Wazir Ahmad (P.W.10) and Minn Khan (P.W.11). According to Imran Asif (P.W.8), he was present at the Taxi Stand Fatehpur, from where at about 2_p.m. Gulzar Ahmad appellant hired his taxi for Chowk Azam. He took him to Fatehpur to his house. The appellant went upstairs (Chaubara) and came down with Gathri Phooldar), Tufail co-accused was following him having a minor girl on his shoulder, who sat on the front seat of the taxi, whereas appellant Gulzar Ahmad occupied rear seat. Both of them took him towards Faisalabad Road in a Mohallah and thereafter Gulzar Ahmad appellant paid him Rs,150 as taxi fare and relieved him. During interrogation the said taxi driver disclosed the whole story and his taxi was also taken in possession by the police. Rana Abdul Jabbar (P.W.9) supported the prosecution case stating that Hafiz Wazir Ahmad complainant is a watchmakerof the area and his children are known to him. All the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. Minn Khan (P.W.11) is a witness of extra-judicial confession, before whom appellant Gulzar Ahmad admitted that he had murdered the children. The appellant also led to the recovery of dead bodies of the children. The dead bodies of the kids were identified in the mortuary and their last-worn clothes were also take into possession by the police.
14. Dr, Manzoor Hussain conducted the post-mortem of Izharul Haq deceased aged about 7/8 years, who found the following injuries on his person:-- "(1) A wound of fire-arm entrance 1 x 1 c.m. x going deep on the left side of back on neck, 1.5. c.m. To the left of midline and 9 c.m. Below the left ear. Blackening was present.
(2) An exit wound of fire-arm 2 x 2 c.m. x going deep on the inside of the mouth, having injured and fractured the 1st and 2nd right upper teeth."
Three anal swa bs were taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis of semen. According to the doctor, all the injuries were ante-mortem caused by fire-arm weapon. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 were grievous and dangerous to life and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, due to injury to the great vessel of the neck leading to hemorrhage and shock. He also conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Mst. Shakila aged about 5/6 years and found the following injuries or her body: "(1) A diffuse swelling all around the lower and middle part of the neck on the front and both sides with the whale area of swelling contused.
(2) A swelling on the back and left side of head 10 c.m. x 10 c.m., starting 4 c.m. Above the left ear."
The prosecution also produced a report of Chemical Examiner which shows that Izharul Haq was subjected to sodomy before murder.
15. The evidence of all the P.Ws. Mentioned hereinabove, recovery of dead bodies at the pointation of the appellant and his extra-judicial confession coupled with the medical evidence established the case against him. From the perusal of the record it transpires that there was no previous enmity or between the witnesses and the accused to falsely implicate him in the case. The High Court with sound and cogent reasons dismissed the appeal of the appellant, and it would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:-- "11. There is no enmity between the complainant and Gulzar Ahmad appellant. The evidence of Muhammad Imran, taxi driver, is of unimpeachable character. He has given all necessary details showing the manner of occurrence and taking of the deceased in his taxi. His taxi was hired by Gulzar Ahmad accused for the purpose of throwing the dead body of Izharul Haq at a distant place to remove the incriminating evidence. It appears that Mst. Shakila who happened to see the incident of death of her brother, was also killed to destroy all possible evidence against the accused. The analysis of the swa bs sent to Chemical Examiner also indicates that deceased Izharul Haq was subjected to sodomy before murder. The report of the Chemical Examiner is positive. The prosecution witnesses are independent."
16. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances are not tenable. The appellant has committed brutal and cruel murders of two innocent minor children, he does not deserve any leniency, capital punishment has rightly been awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the learned High Court.
17. For the foregoing reasons, there is no substance in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is maintained.