' M. NAEEMULLAH KHAN SHERWANI, J.---Mian Muhammad son of Ghulam Rasool and Mst. Sultana Bibi alias Rubi widow of Muhammad Ramzan were tired by learned Judge Special Court, constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Sargodha Division, Sargodha for committing mactation of Muhammad Ramzan, son of Ghulam Abbascomplainant. By virtue of his judgment dated 26-9-1998, the learned trial Judge found them guilty of the charges convicted them under sections .302/201/34, and sentenced them as under:- ' Under section 302/34, P.P.C.
' To death hen- with a fine of Rs,1,00,000 each or in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each. Ii) Under section 201/34, P.P.C.
' To rigorous imprisonment for seven years each with a fine of Rs,10,000 each or in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each.
2. Murder Reference No,I95/T of 1998 seeks confirmation of said sentence of death awarded to Mst.
Sultana Bibi alias Rubi and Mian Muhammad-convicts, whereas they by filing separate appeals bearing Criminal Appeals Nos.150/J and 164/J of 1998, respectively, have approached this Court to call in question convictions and sentences passed against them by the said learned Judge. We propose to dispose of all these matters together through single judgment.
3. Occurrence of the alleged incident had taken place on 1-10-1997 at 11-30 a.m. Within the revenue estate of Chak No,31/DB, situate at a distance of 23/24 kilometers from Police Station Wan Bachran, District Mianwali. It was reported by Ghulam Abbas, complainant (P.W.8), father of Muhammad Ramzan deceased, through an application (Exh.P.G/1) to Sultan Ahmad, A.S.-I. (P.W.5), when he along with other police officials was available at Bridge Khiari on 16-12-1997 at 9-00 a.m. The said A.S.-I. Despatched the same to the police station through Mubarik Ali, C.No,379 for registration of a case. On receipt thereof at the Police Station, Habibullah, M.H.0 (P.W.4) drew up (Exh.P.G) correctly without any addition or subtraction on his part.
4. The complainant puts the matter succinctly by stating in the first information report that he is resident of Chak No,31/DB. Muhammad Ramzan, his son is an employee of the police department.
On 29-9-1997, Muhammad Ramzan came to his house on leave and spent a day there. On 1-10- 1997 at about 11-30 a.m. He left for Sargodha to draw not only his own pay, but also that of his companions. While leaving. He said that after doing the needful he would come back in the evening. He did not come back as indicated by him. Necessary information was then sought from Bhakkar, it he had resumed the duty or not. Inquiry from Bhakkar revealed that he did not reach there. During this phase, inquiries were also made from Sargodha about Muhammad Raman. This inquiry also revealed that Muhammad Ramzan did not receive pay from Sargodha. The complainant endeavoured his best to trace out his son, but failed. He was of the view that Muhammad Ramzan had been abducted by someone to kill him. He undertook to know about his whereabouts. Accordingly, he made a report with regard to abduction of his son. He then made an application to the S.H.O. Police Station Wan Bachran praying therein for registration of a case under section 364, P.P.C. That is how he set the police machinery into motion by getting the above-said case registered against the unknown persons.
5. Consequent upon registration of case, Sultan Ahmad, A.S.-I. (P.W.5) forthwith took over the uphill task of investigation. He immediately proceeded to the venue of occurrence, inspected the same and prepared rough site plan (Exh.P.H). Then investigation into the crime was entrusted to Naveed Murtaza (P.W.10). On 19-1-1998, he recorded supplementary statement of the complainant and Mst.
Meeran Bibi P.W. He arrested Mian Muhammad and Mst. Sultana alias Rubi appellants on 21-1-1998.
They were subjected to interrogation by him, during the course of which they made a disclosure that they could lead to the recovery of dead body of Muhammad Ramzan deceased. Accordingly, while in police custody they led the police party to the residential house of Mst. Sultana. Bibi and on their pointation dead body ,of Muhammad Ramzan was recovered after digging it out from underneath the earth. Head, hands, and legs were separated from the dead body. He prepared injury statement (Exh.P.B), inquest report (Exh.P.C) of the deceased and despatched the dead body to the mortuary for autopsy purpose under the escort of Muhammad Yar, Constable (P.W.3). He then inspected the spot and got prepared ' site plans of the place of occurrence/recovery of dead body (Exhs .P.D & P D/1) from Mirza Muhammad Saeed, Draftsman (P.W.2).
' After post-mortem examination, Muhammad Yar, Constable (P.W.3) produced before him Shalwar (P1), Azar-band (P.2) and a piece of cloth (P.3), which were taken into possession through memo.
Exh.P.E. On 23-1-1998, Mst. Sultana Bibi appellant while in police custody made a disclosure that she could lead to the recovery of letters written by Mian. Muhammad appellant to her from her residential room and she accordingly did so after digging out the earth. The said letters were taken into possession by the investigator through memo. Exh.P.K, duly attested by Bahadur Khan (P.W.7) and Muhammad Akbar P.W. (not produced). Site plan (Exh.P.L) of the place of recovery was also prepared by the Investigating Officer. On the same day, Mian Muhammad appellant while in police custody also got recovered a Hatchet (P.4) and a pair of shoes (P,5/1-2) from his residential house, which were seized through memo. Exh.P.J, duly attested by. Bahadur Khan (P.W.7) and Muhammad Amir P.W. (not produced). He recorded statements of the relevant witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C.
' On 22-6-1998, Sultan Ahmad, A.S.-I. (P.W.5) again took up the investigation, during course of which he made an application (Exh.P.I) to the Ilaqa Magistrate for obtaining signatures of Mian Muhammad appellant for comparison of his handwriting with the letters written by him to Mst.
Sultana Bibi alias Rubi appellant. The Ilaqa Magistrate after summoning Mian Muhammad appellant from jail, obtained his handwriting on several papers and delivered those documents to the investigator for their onward transmission, the Forensic Science Laboratory for' comparison purposes. After finalization of investigation, challan against the appellants was submitted in Court for their trial in accordance with law.
6. The trial Court on receipt of challan immediately subjected the same to necessary scrutiny and after observing all the legal formalities, framed charge and put the same to the appellants. They vehemently controverted the accusations brought against them and claimed to be tried as such.
7. In this eventuality, last resort with the trial Court was to call upon the prosecution to adduce the best possible evidence available within its power and domain. Direction of the trial Court was faithfully complied with and prosecution ventured to produce as many as ten witnesses in all to achieve success in the trial.
8. Most prominent of all these witnesses are Dr. Muhammad Farooq ( P. W.1), Muhammad Khan (P.W.6), Bahadur Khan (P.W.7), Ghulam Abbas, complainant (P.W.8) and Mian Sajid Ali Awan, Civil Judge (P.W.9).
' P. W.1 Dr. Muhammad Maqsood had conducted autopsy on dead body of Muhammad Ramzan and observed as under: ' Cranium and Spinal Cord Examination: ' The neck was cut at the level of C-I, C-2 with the fracture C-1, C-2. The brain was liquefied, scalp, skull, spinal cord were found in stage of adipocere.
' Thorax: ' On examination of thorax walls, ribs, cartilages, pleurae, right lung, left lung, pericardium and heart, blood vessels were found in the stage of adipocre and larynx and trachea were cut and damaged, and in the stage of adipocre.
' Abdomen: ' The walls peritoneum diaphragm stomach and its contents pancreas, small and large intestine, liver, spleen, kidneys, bladder and organs of generation were in a stage of adipocere and mouth larynx oesophagus was in a stage of adipocere and oesophagus was cut and damaged.
Muscles, Bones and Joints: ' The right ulna and radius bone were damaged. Left elbow joint damaged. Both ankles joints were also damaged.
' According to Dr. Muhammad Ramzan died most probably due to cut of neck from body. This injury and rest of the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon. The said injury was declared sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable duration between injury and death was immediate and that between death and post-mortem was about four months. He prepared post-mortem report (Exh.P.A).And pictorial diagrams (Exhs.P.A/1,& P.A/2).
' Muhammad Khan (P.W.6) was associated with the investigation at the time of recovery of dead body of Muhammad Ramzan at the instance of the appellants from residential house of Mst.
Sultana Bibi alias Rubi appellant. He identified the dead body.
' Bahadur Khan (P.W.7) appeared to prove the -factum of recovery of Hatchet (P.1) and a pair of shoes (P.5/1-2) at the instance of Mian Muhammad appellant, which were taken into possession through memo. Exh.P.J, duly attested by him. He was also associated with the investigation, when Mst. Sultana Bibi got recovered eleven letters (P.6/1-11) written by Mian Muhammad appellant to her and attested the recovery memo. Exh.P.K, prepared in this regard by the Investigating Officer.
' Ghulam Abbas, complainant (P.W.8), deposed about F.I.R. Version and all other circumstances, which came to his knowledge subsequently.
' Muhammad Sajid Ali Awan, Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Mianwali (P,W.9) appeared to prove the factum of obtaining samples of handwriting of Mian Muhammad appellant on different papers and their deslivery to the investigator for their onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison purposes.
' Evidence of remaining witnesses is of formal nature, so their statements do not require to be brought under discussion.
9. Learned Prosecutor gave up remaining witnesses being unnecessary and after tendering in evidence report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.P.M) declared the prosecution case close.
10. Whilst under examination under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellants proclaimed their absolute innocence in the matter and alleged their false involvement in the case due to their strained relations with the complainant. While answering question, "Why this case against you and why have the P.Ws. Deposed against you?" they stated as under:-
(i) Mian Muhammad "During the days of occurrence, I was working at a brick-kiln at Quaidabad, 40 Kilometers from Chak No,31/DB. My nephew Muhammad Ramzan had gone to Sargodha to fetch his salary and thereafter he was found missing. I had strained relations with my brother Ghulam Abbas, who falsely implicated me in the blind murder of his son."
(ii) Mst. Sultana Bibi alias Rubi: ' I had contracted love marriage with Muhammad Ramzan deceased and we developed good understanding with each other. Two male issues were born from our wedlock and we have no strained relations with each other. On 1-10-1997 my husband went to Sargodha to collect salary of the police employees but he did not return and thereafter he was, not traceable. My father-in-law, who was annoyed with my love marriage with the deceased and had strained relations with his brother Mian Muhammad, falsely implicated, me and my co-accused by levelling false allegations dificilt intimacy. The love letters attributed to Mian Muhammad were not recovered from my possession nor the parts of dead body were recovered from our residential house."
' They opted not to make statements on oath as envisaged by the relevant provisions of section 340(2), Cr.P.C., in disproof of the accusations levelled against them. They did not opt to produce defence evidence.
11.. The trial culminated into conviction of the appellants by the learned trial Judge as aforementioned.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously argued that prosecution version is neither natural nor rings true; that there is no eye-witness of the murder incident: that handwriting expert was not produced to prove report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.P.M), so no reliance could be placed on this piece of evidence; that recovery of different parts of dead body of. Muhammad Ramzan is of extremely doubtful character because no recovery memo. In of said recovery was prepared by the Investigating Officer; that it appears that the dead body remained in water for a sufficient long time; and that contents of the post-mortem report do not support prosecution story.
Finally it was argued that so many people were living around the place of occurrence, so commission of murder could not have remained unnoticed; that killing of Muhammad Ramzan and burial of his dead body in the house of Mst. Sultana Bibi appellant does not appeal to reason or .Logic and that prosecution has virtually failed to prove its case beyond, any shadow of doubt against the appellants.
13. On the, contrary, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant forcefully argued that dead body of Muhammad Ramzan stood recovered on the pointation of the accused from the house of Mst. Sultana Bibi alias Rubi -appellant. None else ever gained knowledge about this. This fact was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and for this reason evidence of recovery of dead body on the pointation of the appellants, weighs heavily against them. It was next argued that witnesses bore no grudge or grouse against the appellants.
They had no earthly reason at their end to falsely implicate the appellants. Bdsoth the accused wanted to carry forward their 10 t affair and it was illicit liaison between the two, which resulted into gruesome murder of Muhammad Ramzan. It was further submitted that report of the handwriting expert is reliable piece of evidence and has been rightly relied upon the learned trial Judge. Even, the defence did not bother to call him as a witness, and that the complainant happens to be.' real brother of Mian Muhammad appellant and Mst. Sultana Bibi alias Rubi appellant was wife of Muhammad Raman deceased. They both supported judgment of the learned trial Judge.
14. We have cot rteously heard and soberly considered respective arguments of learned counsel for both the sides. We have also gone through the relevant material with their able assistance. In order to ascertain truth behind this matter, we have dived into length and breadth of the case.
Criminals adopt different ways and means to conceal the crime committed by them. In this case too, the appellants did their best to bury the crime to escape punishment for the same. In this case, dead body of Muhammad Ramzan, husband of Mst. Sultana Bibi aliasher house, which was under her exclusive Rubi appellant was dug out from a room of possession. Dead body was cut into several pieces, which reflects upon brutal mentality of the killers. None else in this universe had the knowledge as to what had happened with Muhammad Ramzan since he left for Sargodha from his house on 1-10-1997. Only the appellants opened up the secret behind this episode by pointing out the place where dead body of Muhammad Ramzan was buried by them. In pursuance of the said pointing out, dead body was dug out. Its head had been severed off from trunk of the body. Other organs had also been cut off. It was properly identified by Muhammad Khan (P.W.6). The condition of the body clearly established that Muhammad Ramzan met his death because of extensive violence. Only the appellants could throw light upon this piece of evidence. Both the appellants failed to offer any explanation with regard to the recovery of dead body. The burden of course was very heavy on their shoulders and they badly failed to discharge it. This circumstance by itself is sufficient to prove that Muhammad Ramzan had been killed by the appellants brutally and in a barbaric manner.
15. There are other material items of evidence which sufficiently linked the appellants with the commission of crime in question. Recovery of letters (13.6/1-11) at the instance of Mst. Sultana Bibi alias Rubi from' her house, which tallied with the samiles of handwriting of Mian Muhammad appellant. Report of the handwriting expert is in the -positive. We have minutely examined these letters and find that they were executed on different occasions. They are not in good shape. These letters clearly disclose illicit connection between the appellants. Many a time heinous offences have been committed just because of women or at their instance.
' In the presence of these letters, none else was required to throw light upon the story of illicit liaison between the two. Mian Muhammad is real brother of the complainant. He shattered confidence of his real brother by indulging into such type of nefarious activities. Mst. Sultana Bibi alias Rube also behaved in the worst possible manner by developing illicit liaison with her co-accused. To us, both appear to be the wretched souls.
16. Hatchet recovered was not found stained with blood, so we are not inclined to place reliance on the same. Likewise recovery of pair of shoes is not believable. It appears to be overdoing on the part of the Investigating Officer.
17. To us, the story of love affair between the two appellants and killing of Muhammad Ragman deceased appears to be most genuine. No witness had the slightest reason to involve them wrongly in this case.
18. For all these reasons, we find no merit in these appeals and accordingly dismiss the same.
19. We hid that the learned trial Judge has imposed a fine of Rs,1,00,000 each upon the appellants, which is not legal. The sentence of fine as such is set aside.
20. We have noticed that the learned trial Judge failed to award compensation to legal heirs of the deceased. We accordingly issued notice to the appellants, which was accepted by learned counsel appearing on their behalf.
21. After hearing both the sides, we direct that the appellants shall pay Rs,25,000 each to legal heirs of the deceased by way of compensation as envisaged by the relevant provisions of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.
22. Death sentence of the appellants is confirmed and Murder Reference is answered in the affirmative.