' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No,101/J of 2002 and Murder Reference No,44/T of 2001 as they arise out of the same judgment dated 24-9-2001 passed by a Special Court-III, Lahore vide which having tried the appellant and another (in case registered vide F.1.R. No,444 of 2000 under sections 302, 324 and 109, P.P.C. Read with section 7(iii), A.T.A. Police Station Jaranwala) while acquitting the co-accused, he convicted the appellant for the murder of Ghulam Rasool under sections 302(b)/324, P.P.C. And section 7(iii), A.T.A. And sentenced him as under:-- ' Under section 302(b), P.P.C. Sentenced to death.
' Under section 324, P.P.C. Sentenced to ten years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,20,000 in default whereof to further undergo RI. For ' six months.
' Under section 7(iii), A.T.A. Sentenced to seven years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,10,000 failing which to further undergo four months' R.I.
' Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was also burdened with a sum of Rs,1,00,000, which if recovered was to be given to the legal heirs of Ghulam Rasool deceased.
2. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. Registered on the statement of Zulfiqar Ali, Advocate P.W.9 briefly stated is that on the fateful day at about 11-15 a.m. The complainant was present in the Chamber of Ch. Shafqat-ur-Rehman, Advocate P.W.10 of whom he was Junior and where his father Ghulam Rasool deceased work as a Clerk, when all of a sudden Muzaffar lqbal appellant armed with .30 bore pistol came there, raised a Lalkara that he would not spare son and the father and thereafter, he fired at Ghulam Rasool on the back of his head who fell down from the chair. He fired the second shot at the complainant and Shehzad but both of them took shelter behind the table, whereafter, the appellant firing in the air and raising Lalkara, attempted to run away but the complainant and his other associates gave him chase and overpowered him within the Court premises. His custody thereafter, was handed over to the police alongwith pistol that he was carrying. Ghulam Rasool was shifted to the hospital where he succumbed to the injury and died.
' The motive alleged in the F.I.R. Was that sister of the complainant (daughter of the deceased) was married with Muzaffar lqbal appellant, that she was turned out by the appellant alongwith children and she had to file a suit for maintenance which was pending during the days when the occurrence took place.
3. Having received the information about the occurrence Khuda Bakhsh, S.-I. P.W.11 went to the Civil Hospital, recorded the statement of the complainant, sent the same to police station for registration of a criminal case (registered vide F.I.R. Which is Exh.P.D.). He prepared the injury statement of the deceased (Exh.P.Q.) inquest report (Exh.P.L.), went to the spot and secured blood through cotton from the spot (Exh.P.G.) blood-stained spectacles (Exh.P.7) blood-stained pen of the deceased (Exh.P.8) vide memo. Exh.P.H., took into possession one lead (Exh.P.9) and five empties (Exh.P.10/1-5) vide memo. Exh.P.l. Ch. Shafqat-ur-Rehman P.W.10 produced .30 ,bore pistol of the accused (Exh.P.4) alongwith unloaded three live bullets (Exh.P.5/1-3) vide memo. Exh.P.F. The site plan was, prepared and the appellant was formally arrested who was confined in the Chamber Of Ch. Shafaqat-urRehman, Advocate P.W.10.
4. During trial the prosecution examined eleven witnesses including the doctor and the Investigating Officer. P.W.1 Dr. Javed lqbal conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and found the following injuries on his person:--
(1) A fire-arm lacerated wound (entrance) 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m.
' No blackening with inverted margins on back of right side of head. Lower part 12 c.m. Postro inferior to pina of right ear.
(2) A fire-arm lacerated wound (exit) with ever margins 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. On left lateral side of forehead just above left eyebrow outer side.
' The afore-referred injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
5. Sakhi Muhammad P.W.2 identified the dead body in the hospital. P.W.3 is Muhammad Afzal, Constable who was handed over sealed parcels containing blood-stained earth, sealed parcel containing .30 bore pistol and one parcel containing empties. The latter two parcels he deposited in the Forensic Science Laboratory, whereas former parcel was deposited in the office of the Chemical Examiner. P.W.4 is Muhammad Ilyas, Constable who escorted the dead body to mortuary for post-mortem. P.W.5 is Naseer Hussain, A.S.-I. Who registered the formal F.I.R. P.W.6 is Zulfiqar Constable who kept the three parcels containing blood-stained earth, .30 bore pistol and three live bullets in Police Malkhana. P.W.7 is Aurangzeb, Draftsman who prepared the site plan. P.W.8 is Talib Hussain, Petition Writer by profession and an eye-witness. He corroborated the statement of P.W.9 complainant in all material particulars. P.W.10 is. Ch. Shafqat-urRehman, Advocate in whose chamber the incident took place. He also corroborated the statement of P.W.8 and P.W.9. He is also a witness of recovery of pistol. P.W.11 is Khuda Bakhsh, S.-I. Who investigated the case.
6. The accused when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution story and attributed false implication to the enmity with the complainant party had developed after the separation of appellant's wife and the filing of suit for maintenance by the latter against the appellant.
7. In support of this appeal the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the counsel appointed at State expense submitted that since the appellant was apprehended at the spot and the witnesses produced by the prosecution are natural, they would not seriously challenge the conviction and only prayed for a lesser sentence. The mitigating circumstances according to them are that the appellant was mentally agitated on account of the fact that his wife who is daughter of Ghulam Rasool deceased had deserted him and was living with the deceased alongwith children. The appellant had made efforts to have a ,patch up but those efforts had been of no avail and the deceased was acting as a stumbling block. In the afore-referred circumstances of loneliness, depression and complete helplessness the appellant had come to Ghulam Rasool deceased, his father-in-law to beg for a compromise and in the heat of the moment something happened which has been suppressed by the prosecution on account of which appellant flared up and fired the single shot. There is nothing on record to indicate that fire was repeated. He contended that since the immediate cause is shrouded in mystery and there is only one fire shot made, the sentence of death is harsh and is not in accord with canons of justice.
8. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant on the other hand have defended the impugned judgment by submitting that the appellant had come to the spot after due deliberation and having armed himself with a pistol which he used and fired at Ghulam Rasool which proved fatal. They argued that merely because his wife was living with her father would not constitute a valid ground for the appellant to cause the murder of his father-in-law in broad daylight and in Court premises.
9. Heard.
10. The occurrence took place in the Chamber of a lawyer (Ch. Shafqat-ur-Rehman, Advocate P.W.10). It is in evidence and it is not denied that Ghulam Rasool was Clerk of the said Advocate and Zulfiqar Ali, Advocate P.W.9 was latter's junior. Both these eye-witnesses, therefore, are natural witnesses and the statements made by them are consistent on all material particulars. Talib Hussain P.W.8 is yet another eye-witness who is a Petition Writer and works in the Court premises.
He, it is in evidence was present in the Chamber in question when the occurrence took place. All these witnesses are consistent as to what precisely Ch. Shafqat-ur-Rehman, P.W.10 was doing when the occurrence took place, the manner in which the appellant entered the Chamber, how he fired the first shot and where it hit, how Zulfiqar P.W.9 saved himself from the fire made at him, the manner in which the appellant left the spot raising Lalkara and the mode in which the appellant was apprehended at the spot which was not even seriously challenged in cross-examination.
11. The ocular account discussed above and the arrest of the appellant at the spot is further corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of pistol Exh.P.4. The pistol alongwith empties was sent to the Forensic Science Expert and the report received (Exh.P.O.) is positive and the pistol stands connected with the crime. The motive part of the prosecution story is not only proved by P.W.9 but is admitted even by the appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The defence plea that he has been falsely implicated on account of strained relations between him and his wife is not tenable. Firstly because there was no reason for the complainant party to falsely implicate him as they had taken recourse to legal proceedings and suit for maintenance filed against the appellant was pending decision before the Court of competent jurisdiction; secondly, the ocular account of the prosecution case is furnished by independent, witnesses who are neither related to the complainant party nor they had any enmity with the appellant to falsely implicate him, thirdly the arrest of the appellant at the spot rules out any chance of mistaken identity or substitution.
12. Coming to the question of mitigation, we note that the appellant had acted in a calculated and desperate manner. He came to the spot having armed himself with a pistol and was dare-devil enough to fire at Ghulam Rasool deceased in the Court premises in busy hours. He aimed and fired at the head of the deceased which reflects his criminal intent to cause the death. He was not content at that but repeated the fire even at P.W.9. This desperate disposition leading to the occurrence which stands proved beyond reasonable doubt does not entitle the appellant to any lesser sentence.
13. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in appeal which is dismissed.
Murder Reference is answered in affirmative and sentence of death is confirmed.