' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25-2-1998, passed in Criminal Appeal No,308 of 1995.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Izzat Khan (P. W.5) lodged F.I.R. No,21 of 1994 Exh.P.Q. /2, alleging that his brother Naseer Ahmed was murdered by his rivals, who while sitting in an ambush fired at the car, in which he and Rasheed Ahmad were seriously injured. The complainant was pursuing the murder case of his brother registered with Police Station Nankana .Sahib under sections 302/34/148/149, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,296 of 1993. Taj Din etc., of the accused side got registered .a theft case F.I.R. No,18 of 1994 under sections 457/380, P P C . Against the complainant side with the connivance of the S.H.O. Of said Police Station. Meraj Din and Kodu were detained in Police Station Saddar in connection with the said case. Four/five days earlier, Muhammad Siddique and Abdul Aziz informed the complainant that they had gone to the Police Station for giving meal to Kodu etc., they heard Ghulam Hussain Kitchi Inspector/S.H.O. And Ghulam Muhammad Lambardar, who is related to Abdul Razzaq and Mushtaq Ahmad, proclaimed offenders in F.I.R. No, 296 of 1993, S.H.O. Said to Ghulam Muhammad Lambardar that until and unless they do not murder Izzat Khan, the lives of his relatives would not be safe in the murder case and that he would take care of them. The Lambardar told the S.H.O. That Izzat Khan rarely leaves his house, whereupon S.H.O. Said that for this reasons he had got registered a theft case against the partymo o1 Izzat Khan, and on 15-2-1994 Izzat Khan would attend the Sessions Court in connection with hearing of his bail petition positively, and that he should be finished nowadays.
3. On 8-2-1994, after attending the Court of Magistrate, Izzat Khan complainant alongwith Ashfaq Ahmad, Liaquat Ali and Gulzar Ahmad was, coming back, the complainant was driving car bearing No,964/LHM, Liaqat Ali was sitting on the front seat, while Gulzar and Ashfaq were sitting on the rear seat, when they reached near office of Health Engineer at Shahkot Road, Ghulam Muhammad Lambardar was standing on the road side, who on seeing the car, raised a Lalkara and fired with his pistol hitting the roof of the car. Meanwhile, Muhammad Nawaz appellant No,1, fired with his 7- MM rifle, which hit Ashfaq Ahmad at his right flank and the bullet pierced into his belly. Tariq Mahmood, appellant No,4, fired with his 222 rifle which hit the right thigh of Ashfaq. Gulzar Ahmad, appellant No,2, fired with his 222 rifle which landed at his forehead. Third shot was fired by Gulzar Ahmad with his 222 rifle which landed at his forehead. Fourth shot of Abaidullah, appellant No,3, hit Ashfaq at his right calf. At the time of occurrence, Abdul Razzaq and Mushtaq Ahmad (proclaimed offenders), who were riding a mare, started firing with their Klashnikovs and raised Lalkaras that nobody sitting in the car should remain alive. The complainant with many struggles drove fast his car and took shelter in the nearby village Dhoorkot.
4. Liaquat Ali took Ashfaq and Gulzar injured to the hospital. The complainant submitted a written complaint Exh.P.Q. To Tahir Siddique A.S.-I. (P.W.9) who met him near the Kutchery-Ashfaq succumbed to the injuries on the next day in Mayo Hospital, Lahore.
5. On 8-2-1994, Tahir Siddique, A.S.-I. (P.W.9) sent the complaint to the Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura, for registration of the formal F.I.R. No,21 of 1994, Exh.P.Q./2. He reached the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Exh.P.P. The complainant produced before him his Car P- 4 which he took into possession. He secured seat covers and mats of the said car which were stained with blood. He recorded the statements of the witnesses including the supplementary statement of Izzat Khan complainant. The Investigating Officer prepared injury statement, Exh.P.Q., inquest report Exh.P.D. And sent the dead body of Ashfaq for post-mortem examination. Bashir Ahmad Constable produced before Investigating Officer the last-worn clothes of the deceased, which were secured. The Investigating Officer arrested Ghulam Muhammad accused on 9-2-1994.
6. Ghulam Rasool, Inspector (P.W:11) took the investigation of the case on 15-2-1994, and he arrested Gulzar Ahmad, Muhammad Nawaz and Tariq Mahmood on 2-3-1994, while Abaidullah was arrested on 3-3-1994. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted challan in the Court. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses.
7. The learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 18-5-1995, convicted Muhammad Nawaz appellant under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death, and to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Ashfaq Ahmad, or in default to undergo six months' S.I. Gulzar Ahmad Abaidullah and Tariq Mehmood appellants were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to imprisonment for life, and to pay Rs,25,000 each, as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, or in default thereof to suffer further six months' S.-I. All the appellants were also convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C. For launching murderous assault upon Izzat Khan complainant and sentenced them to undergo 7 years' R.I. Plus a fine of Rs,10,000 each, and in default to undergo further 1 year's S.I. The appellants were further convicted under section 337(a)
(iii)/34, P.P.C. For causing injury to Gulzar Ahmad (P.W.6) and sentenced them to 5 years' R.I. Each with a direction to pay 5% of Diayat i.e, 10,134. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. However, Ghulam Muhammad co-accused was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.
8. The convicts filed an appeal against their conviction and sentences, which was dismissed by the learned Members of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, vide impugned judgment, dated 25- 2-1998.
9. Vide order of this Court, dated 26-5-1999, leave to appeal was granted to reappraise the prosecution evidence to ensure fair administration of criminal justice in the case.
10. Mr. Aftab Farrukh, learned counsel for the appellants, inter alia, contended that the prosecution case was doubtful, as the ocular testimony was not corroborated by reliable and independent evidence and the awarding of death penalty to Muhammad Nawaz appellant was not in accordance with the law and the facts of the case.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the accused-appellants have caused the murder of Ashfaq Ahmad in a cruel manner and launched murderous assault upon Izzat Khan complainant and Gulzar Ahmad P.W. In a broad daylight. He further stated that there is sufficient and reliable prosecution evidence available on the record to maintain the conviction.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence with their assistance. The occurrence had taken place at 2-30 p.m. And the F.I.R. Was promptly lodged by the complainant at 4-15 p.m. The ocular account furnished by P.Ws. 5 and 6 fully supports the medical evidence. Their deposition and injury on the person of P.W.6 show that they were present in the car at the time of occurrence. Their evidence stood the test of lengthy cross-examination during the trial, but the defence failed to rebut their evidence. They are natural witnesses of the occurrence and their statements inspire confidence. Non-recovery of weapons of offence does not create any doubt in the prosecution version because the accused remained at large for about one month, therefore, they were able to destroy the weapons of offence and as such no recovery was effected from them. It is advantageous to refer here relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:-- ' "The upshot of the above discussion is that ocular account furnished by P.W.5 and P.W.6 inspires confidence and is trustworthy. The ocular account finds support from the medical evidence- and motive alleged in the F.I.R. The prosecution has established its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. The learned trial Judge was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants. The fatal injury is attributed to appellant No,1 Muhammad Nawaz. He committed murder of Ashfaq deceased who was a young man of 22 years in a brutal manner alongwith his co-accused and does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. We accordingly affirm the death sentence awarded to him."
13. In our considered view, the learned trial Court has correctly found the appellants guilty of the charge and the learned Judges in the High Court rightly agreed with the conclusion of the trial Court. We find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.