' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---The appellants Muhammad Ilyas, Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Asif were tried by the learned Judge, Special Court No,II Gujranwala alongwith Mst. Bashiran Bibi, Muhammad Mansha, Muhammad Nawaz and Noor Muhammad on charge under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. For having committed the murders of five persons, namely, Muhammad Akram, Zahid Hussain, Liaquat Ali, Abid Hussain and Muhammad Inayat. At the conclusion of the trial on 1- 6-1998 Mst. Bashiran Bibi, Muhammad Mansha, Muhammad Nawaz and Noor Muhammad were acquitted for want of proof of abetment attributed to them and the appellants were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to death on five counts and a fine of Rs,5,00,000 each or five years' R.I. In default. Half of the fine, on recovery, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed on 3-5-2000 by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court Lahore and the sentence of death awarded to them was confirmed.
2. Leave to appeal was granted to reappraise the evidence so as to determine as to whether guilt of the appellants stood established beyond doubt in view of the contentions that both the eye- witnesses were closely related to the deceased and chance witnesses, the ocular evidence was uncorroborated and the motive was false on account of composition between the parties.
3. The incident had taken place on 4-6-1997 at about 5-15 p.m. On the Grand Trunk Road opposite Babu Fazal Market near Rahwali Sugar Mills, Gujranwala. The F.I.R. Was lodged on the same day at 5-30 p.m. At Police Station Cantt. Gujranwala by Noor Muhammad father of Muhammad Akram deceased. The allegations made therein were to the effect that on 3-11-1994 a quarrel amongst the children of two families had led to a fight between Sajjad son of Ramzan and Liaquat Ali son of Muhammad Inayat as a result of which the former had lost his life. Liaquat Ali was charged and arrested in that case. In retaliation Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Nawaz alongwith a few others had murdered Muhammad Arif and Rehmat Ali, brother and brother-in-law of Liaquat Ali, and caused injuries to Muhammad Sadiq on 10-3-1995. Muhammad Boota and Ghulam Nabi were arrested in that case. While the accused in both the cases were confined in Jail a compromise was effected between the parties as a result whereof Muhammad Boota was released on bail on 3-6- 1997 and release of Liaquat Ali on bail materialised on 4-6-1997. The complainant alongwith his son Muhammad Akram, Abid Hussain, Muhammad Inayat and Zahid Hussain went to jail in a Suzuki Taxi bearing No,GTB-17, being driven by Zahid Hussain, to receive Liaquat Ali. After his release Liaquat Ali boarded the Taxi alongwith Muhammad Akram, Abid Hussain and Muhammad Inayat and the complainant left for the house of Ashraf Fauji situated in Rahwali Cantt. In 'a wagon. The complainant waited for Liaquat Ali etc. In the house of Ashraf Fauji for sometime but in vain. Out of anxiety he 'alongwith Muhammad Mansha, Muhammad Inayat and Abdul Mannan set out in a Suzuki Pick-up in search of Liaquat Ali etc. On reaching near Chand Cinema Rahwali located on the G.T. Road they spotted the Suzuki Taxi coming from Gujranwala side. They started following the same after reversing their car. At about 5-15 p.m. When the Suzuki Taxi reached opposite Babu Fazal Market Rahwali the appellants alongwith their absconding co-accused Muhammad Boota appeared on the scene, duly armed, in a red colour car bearing No,LOC-3575. They stopped their car in front of the Suzuki Taxi and alighthed from the car. Ghulam Abbas fired effectively at Liaquat Ali and Zahid Hussain and the shots fired by Muhammad Ily as hit Muhammad Akram on the right side of his neck. Muhammad Boota and Muhammad Asif fired effectively at Muhammad Inayat and Abid Hussain who were sitting in the rear seat. Thereafter, all the four accused sprayed the Suzuki Taxi with bullets which hit the five victims on various parts of their bodies as a result of which all of them died on the spot. The tragedy was enacted by the accused at the behest of Noor Muhammad son of Mahand, Master Nawaz, Chathha and Mst. Bashiran Bibi widow of Muhammad Ramzan.
4. One of the accused nominated in the F.I.R., namely, Muhammad Boota made himself scarce after the occurrence but the remaining three accused, appellants herein were arrested on 27-7- 1997 and two Klashinikovs with 48 live bullets were recovered on the pointation of Muhammad Ilyas and. Muhammad Asif. The dead bodies of the five deceased were subjected to autopsy in Civil Hospital Gujranwala on 5-6-1997 at 1-00 p.m. By Dr. Abdul Aziz Tarar. The autopsy disclosed 6 fire- arm injuries on various parts of the dead body of Zahid Hussain deceased, 25 fire-arm injuries on the dead body of Liaquat Ali deceased, 9 fire-arm injuries on the dead body of Abid Hussain deceased, 19 fire-arm injuries on the dead body of Muhammad Inayat deceased and 14 fire-arm injuries on the dead body of. Muhammad Akram deceased. It was opined by the doctor that death of the five victims was caused by the fire-arm injuries sustained by them.
5. The impugned judgment was assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants from different angles. At the outset he contended with vehemence that the appellants had no motive whatsoever to commit the murders of the five deceased as according to the contents of the F.I.R. And the prosecution version of the occurrence the earlier murders had been compromised. The next contention was that the appellants had been charged on suspicion which cannot take the place of legal proof. He further contended that the eyewitnesses were not only closely related to the deceased and inimically disposed towards appellants but were also chance witnesses as they had no business to be present on the Grand Trunk Road where the occurrence had taken place. They had also not furnished any explanation for their presence on the spot of occurrence. The next contention raised by him was that the entire prosecution story was doubtful as the conspiracy- part had not been established. It was also contended that the ocular evidence was not corroborated by any independent piece of evidence as no weapon was recovered from or on the pointation of Ghulam Abbas and the Klashnikovs allegedly recovered on the pointation of Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Asif appellants were not sent to the Fire-arms Expert. The last contention was to the effect that the sentence of death awarded to the appellants was harsh and required modification in the interest of justice.
6. The learned counsel representing the State and the learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment by reiterating the reasons for conviction of the appellants incorporated therein. The main thrust of their contentions was that the ocular evidence was not only worthy of credence but was also corroborated by the motive, the medical evidence and recovery of two Klashnikovs on the pointation of the appellants Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Asif.
7. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have not impressed us. The occurrence had taken place in broad daylight and all the three appellants were squarely charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. For killing the five deceased by effective firing made from Klashinikovs.
The appellants were known to the deceased, therefore, the possibility of mistaken identity stands ruled out. The accusation against the appellants is supported by the ocular evidence, furnished by the complainant Noor Muhammad (P.W.11) and Abdul Mannan (P.W.10), which is amply corroborated by the promptly lodged, F.I.R., the motive and the medical evidence. Both the eye- witnesses have given a straightforward and consistent account of the occurrence and there is nothing in their cross-examination to suggest even remotely that they were prompted by any oblique motive to falsely implicate the appellants in the case. No doubt the complainant being father of Muhammad Akram deceased and father-in-law of sister of Liaquat Ali deceased and daughter of Muhammad Inayat deceased is closely related to some of the deceased persons and there is background of enmity also between his close relatives and the appellants but these circumstances do not justify rejection of his testimony inasmuch as it is corroborated by the aforementioned confirmatory pieces of evidence and by now it is firmly settled that relationship of an eye-witness with the deceased is meaningless if c his testimony is corroborated by independent evidence. The second eyewitness, namely, Abdul Mannan is an independent witness in that he is neither related to any deceased nor inimical towards any appellant. The occurrence had taken place at 5-15 p.m. And the F.I.R. Was lodged at 5-30 p.m. At Police Station Cantt; Gujranwala, located at a distance of 1-1/2 kilometre from the spot of occurrence. The promptitude with which the F.I.R. Was lodged goes a long way to establish presence of both the eyewitnesses on the spot at the time of occurrence. Both the eye-witnesses are thus natural and not chance witnesses. The explanation in regard to presence of Abdul Mannan on the spot is contained in his statement. It is in his statement that Muhammad Akram deceased was his friend and he had gone to the house of Muhammad Ashraf Fauji pursuant to information that after his release from Jail Liaquat Ali will come there. After waiting for sometime he left the house of Muhammad Ashraf Fauji alongwith Noor Muhammad etc. In a Suzuki Pick-up to look for Liaquat Ali and his companions and on seeing their Suzuki Taxi on the G.T. Road they followed it by reversing their car and in the meantime the occurrence took place the complainant has also given an explanation about his presence on the spot which forms an integral part of the prosecution story. The complainant's departure from Jail to the house of Muhammad Ashraf Fauji cannot be termed as intriguing because Liaquat Ali was real brother of Muhammad Ashraf Fauji and it appears that some arrangements had been made in his house to celebrate release of Liaquat Ali on bail. The anxiety caused by the delay in the arrival of Liaquat Ali in the house of Muhammad Ashraf Fauji stands to reason, therefore, the course of action adopted by the complainant and Abdul Mannan was natural. And not odd. The complainant and his companions having seen the Suzuki Taxi in which Liquat Ali was travelling had reversed their car and were following the Taxi when the occurrence took place, therefore, it cannot be said that they are chance witnesses.
8. The occurrence was certainly motivated by the cold-blood feud between the parties and the composition appears to have been used as a contrivance to take revenge. It is a matter of common knowledge that at times unscrupulous and revengeful persons take undue advantage of composition. It will be pertinent to mention that the appellants Muhammad Ilyas and Ghulam Abbas are brothers inter se while appellant Muhammad Asif is their maternal cousin and Sajjad for whose murder Liaquat Ali was charged was real brother of the appellants Muhammad Ilyas and Ghulam. Abbas.
9. As to sentence, suffice it to say that the sentence of death awarded to the appellants by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court meets the ends of justice and there is no mitigating circumstance for awarding lesser penalty.
' For the above reasons, we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed.