' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, J.-Liaqat Hussain Khan, Advocate, on 13-7-1994 at 10-15 hours was murdered by firing in the Court premises of Bhakkar. The case vide F.I.R. No,115 of 1994 was registered at Police Station, City Bhakkar on the complaint of Shujaat Hussain Khan, he brother of the deceased. Mehr Khan, Aziz-ur-Rehman and Khalas Khan were indicted to stand trial under sections 302/34, P.P.C. Before the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali, who, vide his judgment dated 6-11-1995, held all the accused guilty. Mehr Khan was sentenced to death while Aziz-ur-Rehman and Khalas Khan were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The convictions and sentences were upheld by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court vide judgment, dated 23-11-1999, Mehr Khan convict has filed the instant petition for leave to appeal, wherein we had the opportunity of hearing at length Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, learned counsel for the complainant.
2. The complainant also has filed a separate Criminal Petition No,12-L of 2000 seeking enhancement of sentence of life imprisonment awarded to Aziz-ur-Rehman and Khalas Khan. It is informed that both of them have already served the sentence out and hence Sardar Muhammad ishaq Khan has opted to withdraw such petition for enhancement.
3. Liaqat Hussain Khan, Advocate on the fateful day, after putting up appearance before Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar was proceeding towards his Chamber. His brother Shujaat Hussain Khan and a companion Muhammad Nawaz son of Haq Nawaz had been following him at 6/7 Karams.
When Shujaat Hussain reached near the canteen of Sessions Court, Mehr Khan armed with a .12 bore pistol suddenly appeared on the scene alongwith Aziz-ur-Rehman who was not armed. The latter gave a "Lalkara" to Liaqat Hussain that they had come to avenge the murder of Allah Zai. The deceased, holding his left arm up forbade both the assailants from firing and resorting to cruelty.
Mehr Khan fired from his .12 bore pistol which hit Liaqat Hussain on left side near armpit. Mehr Khan was immediately grappled by Muhammad Nawaz, the companion of the complainant while Aziz- ur-Rehman took to his heels. Meanwhile, police officials came on the spot, overpowered Mehr Khan and snatched pistol from him.
4. Shujaat Hussain complainant and Muhammad Nawaz then started giving chase to Aziz-ur- Rehman. The latter after some distance reached his brother Khalas Khan who was waiting on his motorbike the engine whereof was kept running. Khalas Khan, drawing his pistol of .30 bore, held Shujaat Hussain Khan and Muhammad Nawaz at bay and thereafter sped away from the spot. The occurrence was stated to have been witnessed by another Ehsanullah, Advocate as well.
5. Motive for the offence is given to the effect that about seven months prior to the occurrence one Allah Zai, a real brother of Aziz-urRehman and Khalas Khan and a cousin of Mehr Khan, was murdered for which Akhtar Hussain and Tahirullah related to the deceased were charged. In such case the deceased Liaqat Hussain, Advocate had been pursuing the litigation.
6. The prosecution relies upon the ocular testimony rendered by Shujaat Hussain complainant P.W.-6, Muhammad Nawaz P.W.-7 and Hameed Ullah, A.S.-I. P.W.-8. We have minutely gone through the statements of these witnesses who fully supported the case of the prosecution and have not at all been shattered in the cross-examination. All of them had no direct motive of their own to implicate the accused and hence their testimony alone can be relied upon in order to base conviction thereon.
7. If any support at all is required, that also is available in abundance. The apprehension of Mehr Khan on the spot alongwith the recovery of .12 bore pistol is the strongest one that supports the case of prosecution. He had fired one shot and so one empty was recovered from the spot that matched with the recovered pistol. The nature and locale of injury is supported by Dr. Muhammad Ramzan who conducted postmortem examination. If at all any further corroboration is sought, Hameed Ullah, A.S.-I. Renders the strongest of corroboration. He being a totally independent witness and being present around had immediately rushed to the spot at the time when Muhammad Nawaz had held Mehr Khan in the grapple. Hameed Ullah, A.S.-I. Also apprehended him and arrested him in the case snatching the pistol from him on the spot. Mehr Khan petitioner cannot wriggle out of the strong circumstantial evidence of his arrest on the spot alongwith a pistol of .12 bore.
8. Although in the given circumstances and in the wake of such a strong ocular as well as circumstantial evidence the motive is immaterial yet it was independently proved. Mehr Khan though not related so closely to the previous deceased Allah Zai can be logically said to have nourished the grievance because he also happened to be the brother-in-law.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner Mehr Khan assailed the conviction etc. On numerous grounds. First of them was that the accused having been tried in jail had been denied the right of fair trial. We have not been convinced as to how a trial conducted in jail is tantamount to denial of fair trial because in the given situation of law and order, mostly the trials are held in jail premises or in other such-like places which are considered safe. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan informed us at the bar that trial in jail was so conducted at the request of the accused himself. The argument does not carry any force.
10. It was contended that the eye-witnesses are chance witnesses and hence needed to be independently corroborated. The witnesses during their examination in Court have explained the cause of their presence on the spot alleging that the deceased intended to purchase a plot and for that purpose they had came to the Court premises. This reason could not be rebutted at trial.
Moreover, the presence of Shujaat Hussain and Muhammad Nawaz, the related witnesses if at all, is fully proved by Hameed Ullah, A.S.-I. Who had seen Mehr Khan convict in physical grapple of Muhammad Nawaz. It is argued that Hameed Ullah, A.S.-I. Is a false witness because his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. This is also falsified by the fact firstly, that it was he who had arrested Mehr Khan on the spot and secondly, it is mentioned in the F.I.R. That the police officials present around had immediately rushed to the spot who had physically apprehended Mehr Khan. The only difference is that instead of the name of Hameed Ullah, A.S.-I. The complainant had referred to police officials in general. This is all the more natural because at that time he was not supposed to have had known the name of Hameed Ullah. Rather it appears to be more natural and spontaneous and further indicates that the F.I.R. Was lodged without consultation and deliberation.
Had it been so, it would not have been difficult for the complainant to have mentioned the name of Hameed Ullah, A.S.-I. In specific.
11. It is further contended that the prosecution has relied upon the ocular testimony of related witnesses and has abandoned one Ehsanullah, Advocate who was the only independent witness.
We are not convinced by this fact also because firstly the testimony of a witness cannot be brushed aside merely because he or they happened to be related one. Secondly, when the prosecution had the support of as many as three eye-witnesses, they were not bound to produce all of them and so Ehsanullah, Advocate was rightly abandoned as unnecessary. We are also mindful of the fact that people do not come forward to depose in a capital charge and to invite the wrath and enmity of an accused. It is a sign of moral degeneration, still, we have to accept it as an unfortunate norm of the society that we live in.
12. The motive is alleged to be not natural as well as not proved. The latter part is not correct because the F.I.R. Of the former case is available at page-109. Why the assailants did not choose the real culprit and why the deceased who was merely pursuing the criminal case, is a matter resting with the frame of mind of the accused. It is not unnatural or uncommon that sometimes people get flared up against those who simply pursue the matters. When they cannot lay their hands upon the real person, they vent their emotions of anger and revenge against others.
13. With regard to his apprehension on the spot, petitioner Mehr Khan came up with the explanation during his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. That such apprehension was false and that he in fact was apprehended a day earlier by the S.H.O. In sume other case, was associated with the investigation and on the next day involved in the instant one. This stance appears to be totally false and malicious. He has not been able to point out any case registered a day earlier and has failed even to mention as to what offence it involved. It does not appeal to reason that the S.H.O. Had any or so much of enmity with the convict Mehr Khan that he involved him falsely in a heinous case of capital charge or that he knew that the present murder would take place the next date and he would find an occasion to involve the petitioner.
14. The upshot of what has been discussed above is that the prosecution has fully proved its case against Mehr Khan petitioner to the hilt. So far as the effective role is concerned, he was the one who was singularly charged whereas the second one, namely, Aziz-ur-Rehman was not even armed and the third one Khalas Khan has not even participated in the actual bout. The case of Mehr Khan being fully proved, he was rightly convicted and deserves normal penalty of death.
There is not a single mitigating circumstance justifying reduction in sentence. Rather he had been too aggressive to kill the deceased who had merely pursued the previous murder case either in his capacity as an Advocate or a mere well-wisher in the family. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.