' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above two petitions for leave to appeal, arising out of the same judgment, dated 22-1-2001, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No,951 of 1998.
2. Briefly stated the story of the prosecution is that Abdul Hamid lodged an F.I.R. Alleging therein that on the night of 27-3-1998 he alongwith Jamil Rabbani, OSD, and Haji Aman-ul-Haq, Security Supervisor, Qand Ghar Sugar Mills, was going in Jeep No,8388/IDF, driven by Muhammad Rafiq son of Rahim Bakhsh. At about 1-45 a.m. When they reached near Chak No,67/RB, all of a sudden, five persons armed with fire-arms emerged from the wheat crop grown on either side of the road, the assailants blocked the road with a log of wood in order to stop their vehicle. Muhammad Rafiq driver continued driving by taking the jeep from the side of the road, whereupon one accused, who was armed with a rifle, fired, which pierced the front screen of the jeep and hit Muhammad Rafiq on his head which resulted in the stoppage of the jeep. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away in Car No,2406-IDE Suzuki Khyber and Car. No,2500.DNA Toyota Corolla. Muhammad Rafiq succumbed to his injuries at the spot. In the meanwhile, from wheat crop Shaukat Ali son of Abdul Ghafoor, driver of Car No,2500-DNA, Haider Ali, Admn. Assistant of Mills, who was driving Car No,2406-IDF alongwith Pervaiz Akhtar, Senior Engineer and Liaquat Ali, Electrical Engineer of Mills, came there from the wheat crop and told that the accused had also looted Rs,8,000 from them and fastened them.
3. In the meanwhile the police reached the spot. The complainant recorded his statement before the police. After completing the investigation, the accused persons were challaned and were sent up to face trial. All the petitioners-accused were indicted, they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 witnesses.
4. To learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 21-9-1998, convicted Ashfaq, Fazal Haq, Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Yasin petitioners and Shahbaz co-accused, under sections 302/396/149, P.P.C. And each of them was awarded death penalty by way of Ta'zir and to pay a fine of Rs,50,000 each, or in default to further undergo R.I. For six years. It was directed that, if the fine was realized, the whole amount shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation.
All the accused were further convicted under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and awarded death penalty. They were also convicted under section 148, P.P.C. And each one of them was awarded three years' R.I. They were further convicted under sections 395/149, P.P.C. And were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The petitioners and co-accused Shahbaz, Zulfiqar and Aman Ullah were also convicted under section 412, P.P.C. And they were awarded life imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the accused.
5. All the convicts appealed to the Lahore High Court. The learned Members of the Bench, vide impugned judgment, dated 22-1-2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No,951 of 1998, acquitted Shahbaz co-accused of all the charges. The death sentence awarded by the trial Court to Muhammad Khan accused-petitioner was confirmed. The death sentence awarded to Ashfaq Fazal Haq, Muhammad Yasin and Muhammad Afzal was reduced to imprisonment for life. Conviction under sections 395/396/149, P.P.C. Along with sentence was maintained against all the aforesaid accused. As the charge under section 412, P.P.C. Was not proved, they were acquitted. The conviction under section 148, P.P.C. Was also maintained. Conviction under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was maintained against Muhammad Khan and the remaining accused were acquitted under this charge. It was ordered that all the sentences should run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Hence, these petitions.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the learned Judges of the High Court have erred in law in placing reliance on the evidence regarding identification parade, as the role played by each accused at the time of alleged occurrence was not disclosed by the witnesses at the time of identification parade, moreover, the incident was also that of night time: that after having disbelieved the recoveries at the instance of the petitioners and acquitting accused under section 412, P.P.C., the learned High Court fell into an error in convicting the petitioners without any independent corroboration of the ocular testimony and that the petitioners could not be awarded extreme punishment on the same evidence on which Shahbaz co-accused has been acquitted.
7. We have anxiously given our attention to the arguments of the learned counsel and have also gone through the record minutely. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the identification parade was not properly held and the incident was of night time, therefore, the P.Ws. Could not have properly seen the culprits and the possibility of mistaken identity could not be ruled out. No doubt, the P.Ws. Were travelling in a jeep, which had its headlights on, whereas the persons who reached the metalled road, where the occurrence took place, also had the advantage of light emitting from the beams of the two cars in which the petitioners could have been easily identified. P.W.8 Liaquat Ali in unequivocal terms stated that they identified the culprits in the light of the head-lights of Car No,2406-IDE. It is borne out from the record that precautionary steps were taken by the Investigating Officer so that the petitioners may not be seen by the prosecution witnesses immediately after their arrest and remanded them to the jail custody before holding of the identification parade. The Investigating Officer also instructed the petitioners to muffle their faces so that there may not be a chance for the witnesses to see them. The memo. Of identification test shows that some witnesses identified some of the accused, whereas the other witnesses identified the remaining accused. The Magistrate also mixed 30 dummies with the accused and changed their positions at the time of the identification parade before the witnesses were called upon to identify them. It is also in evidence that the witnesses were kept far away from the place, so that they may not be able to see the petitioners. The prosecution story also gets support from the report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.G.G. Mentioning that the cotton was stained with blood and the report of the Serologist Exh.P.H.H. Confirmed that the blood was of human nature. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory shows that crime empty of .7 MM bore was fired from the rifle recovered from Muhammad Khan. Apart from ocular evidence the prosecution was able to furnish circumstantial evidence which corroborates the ocular version.
8. The case of Muhammad Ashfaq, Fazal Haq, Muhammad Yasin and Muhammad Afzal is that they were armed with weapons and they also facilitated the commission of the offence by blocking the road so that vehicles may be forced to halt. Their conviction under section 302, P.P.C. Was rightly upheld by the High Court but taking lenient view their death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment. We find that the High Court after considering all aspects of the case and pleas raised by the defence counsel convicted the petitioners. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned and is based on the principles laid down by this Court for safe administration of criminal justice.
9. For the facts and reasons stated above, these petitions are dismissed and leave is refused.