1. ' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.--- After having been tried in case F.I.R. No,306, dated 22-7-1994 under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar, Kamoke, Arif Baig appellant was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. For causing death of Shahbaz and sentenced to death. He was also ordered to pay compensation of Rs,30,000 under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of the deceased, in default thereof to undergo six months' S.I. He was further convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C. For causing injury to Sultan Mehmood and sentenced to five years' R.I. And also order to pay Rs,10,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. He was also convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C. For causing injury to Sarfraz Khan and sentenced to five years' R.I., with a fine of Rs,10,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To be paid to the injured P.W., in default thereof to undergo S.I. For six months. He was also ordered to pay fine of Rs,5,000 in default thereof to undergo six months' S.I. Intizar Baig, co-accused was convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years' R.I. For causing injuries to Nadeem Tariq with a fine of Rs,10,000 to be paid to the injured P.W. As compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default thereof to undergo six months' S.I. Intizar Baig was also convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years R.I. For causing injuries to Shahzad Faisal, P.W. And also ordered to pay Rs,10,000 as compensation to the injured under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default thereof to undergo six months'
2. S.I. Intizar Baig was also ordered to pay fine of Rs,5,000, in default thereof to undergo six months' S.I.
3. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, extended in their favor. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. ' Through the same judgment co-accused Sarfraz Baig and Ishtiaq Baig were acquitted of the charge.
5. ' The brief facts of the case are that F.I.R. No,306, dated 22-7-1994 (Exh.P.A./1) was registered at Police Station Saddar, Kamonke at 12-35 p.m. By Allah Ditta, S.-I. P.W., on the basis of statement Exh.P.A. Of Khushi Muhammad, P.W.2 recorded by Muhammad Sadiq, Inspector P.W.12 at 11-55 a.m.
6. At Eminabad Morr, alleging therein that the complainant was cultivator and resident of Haveli Diwana. Accused Sarfraz Baig son of Iftikhar Baig and Ijaz Khan son of Muhammad Rafiq were resident of the same locality, Shahbaz son of Ghaus who was real nephew of the complainant and was living with him after death of Ghaus Muhammad, brother of the complainant. The house of Sarfraz Baig was also situated in the same lane which leads to the house of the complainant. Arif Baig and son Sarfraz Baig and Ijaz Khan son of Muhammad Rafiq were depositing savings in committee. Intizar Baig, Sarfraz Baig and Ijaz Khan, Sarfraz Khan, Sultan son of Muhammad Siddiq had a quarrel in the after noon a day before over distribution of committee amount but they were separated due to intervention of Muhammad Siddiq son of Karim Bakhsh and Muhammad Akbar son of Hashim Ali. Arif Baig, appellant .At the time of departure had threatened the deceased Shahbaz for taking revenge.
7. ' On the da'y of occurrence at 8 a.m. Sarfraz Khan son of Muhammad Rafiq, Sultan Mehmood son of Muhammad Siddiq were returning to their house from Bazar. Shahbaz son of Ghaus Muhammad was also following them a few paces, Arif Baig armed with rifle .222 bore, Intizar Baig armed with pistol .30 bore along with Sarfraz Baig and Ishtiaq Baig who had way laid. Sarfraz Baig and Ishtiaq Baig raised Lalkara to teach lesson to Shahbaz for causing insult on previous day. Arif Baig fired a shot from his .222 rifle which hit at the back of head of Shahbaz, deceased. Sultan Mehmood tried to intervene but he was fired at by Arif Baig on left side of his chest. Sarfraz Baig raised alarm who was also fired at by Arif Baig on his right thigh. Nadim Tariq and Shahbaz were also attracted to the spot. Intizar Baig fired hitting Nadeem Tariq on right chin and Shahzad Faisal on his left shoulder.
8. The occurrence was also witnessed by Muhammad Sadiq son of Barkat Ali. Shahbaz, Sultan, Sarfraz Khan, Shahzad Faisal were removed to Civil Hospital, Gujranwala in injured condition where Shahbaz succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. Sultan, Sarfraz Khan and Shahzad Faisal were medically examined and their medico-legal reports Nos.3113, 3114,3116 and 3117 were produced before Muhammad Sadiq, Inspector P.W.12.
9. ' Muhammad Sadiq, Inspector P.W.12 after recording the statement Exh.P.A. Sent the same to the police station for registration of formal F.I.R. And he himself arrived at Civil Hospital, Gujranwala along with Khushi Muhammad, complainant and prepared the injury statement of Shahbaz deceased through memo. Exh.P.J. And inquest report Exh.P.K. And sent the dead body for post- mortem examination. Thereafter, he arrived at the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan of place of occurrence through memo. Exh.P.M. And collected the blood-stained earth through memo. Exh.P.B. Which was attested by Khushi Muhammad, P.W.2. Thereafter he recorded the statements of the P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 23-7-1994 he took the last-worn clothes of the deceased into possession produced before him through memo. Exh.P.C. On 30-7-1994 he went to Services Hospital, Lahore Where he recorded the statements of Sultan, Sarfraz Khan by moving applications Exh.P.N. And Exh.P.O. To M.S. Services Hospital, Lahore whether these witnesses were fit to make statements. Earlier he had also visited the Services Hospital on 23-7-1994 to record their statements but at that time M.S. Services Hospital stated that the P.Ws. Were not fit to record their statements. On 8-4-1994 he arrested Arif Baig who while in police custody led to the recovery of .222 rifle along with 5 live bullets P.2/1-5 which were taken into possession through memo. Exh.P.D.
10. After completion of the investigation he submitted the challan.
11. ' The trial Court framed the charge which was denied by the accused and they claimed trial.
12. ' During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused.
13. ' Dr. Riasat Ali, M.O. P.W.7 on 23-7-1994 conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Shahbaz son of Ghaus Muhammad and found the following injury on his body:-- "A lacerated wound on top back in front of head in centre with fractured frontal parietal occipital bones in centre and brain matter coming out of bone."
14. ' Dr. Muhammad Fiaz, M.O. P.W.10 on 22-7-1994 medically examined Shahzad Faisal son of Muhammad Jamil and found the following on his person:-- "A fire-arm lacerated wound of entry 2 x 1-1/2 c.m. Going deep in front of left upper arm upper part."
15. ' On the same day the same doctor also medically examined Sultan Mahmood son of Muhammad Siddiq and found the following injuries on his person:--
(1) A fire-arm lacerated wound of exit 2-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. Going deep on outer side of left chest lower part 16 c.m. Below left nipple. 19 c.m. From midline.
(2) A fire-arm lacerated wound of entry 1-1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Going deep on back of left chest lower part.
16. ' On the same day he also medically examined Nadeem Tariq son of Muhammad Jamil and found the following injury on his person:-- "A fire-arm glancing wound 6 x 3 c.m. Muscle deep on back of right leg upper part."
17. ' Khushi Muhammad complainant was examined as P.W.2 He supported the version of the F.I.R. And narrated the motive for the occurrence. He was real paternal-uncle of the deceased and stated that the deceased was residing with him during the days of occurrence. Sultan Mehmood, P.W.2 and Sarfraz Khan, P.W.4 were also injured witnesses in the same occurrence. They supported the story of the prosecution as narrated by the complainant. They also narrated the fact that they received injuries at the hands pf the accused in the same occurrence. Akbar Ali, P.W.1 supported the motive part of the occurrence and narrated the quarrel outside of his house one day prior to this occurrence between Sarfraz Baig, Arif Baig, Intizar Baig accused on one side and Sultan Mahmood, Sarfraz Khan and Ijaz Khan on the other side. Talib Hussain, P.W.6 was recovery witness of licensed .222 rifle P.1 and pistol .30 bore P.3 got recovered by Arif Baig and Intizar Baig in his presence which were taken into possession through memo. Exh.P.E. Which was attested by him and Muhammad Hanif, P.W. Arif Hussain Iyaz, Draftsman was examined as P.W.8 who scaled the site plan of the place of occurrence. Riasat Ali, H.C. P.W.9 escorted the dead body of Shahbaz deceased for post-mortem examination, Allah Ditta, A.S.-I. P.W.11 recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1.
18. ' The prosecution evidence was closed by tendering in evidence report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.Q. And that of Serologist Exh.P.R.
19. ' After close of the prosecution evidence statement of Arif Baig, accused/appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he denied the allegations and claimed his innocence and false involvement due to previous enmity and political rivalry.
20. ' The trial culminated into conviction and sentence of the-appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. While the trial Court has sent up murder reference for confirmation of death sentence.
21. Intizar co-convict challenged his conviction and sentence through Criminal Appeal No,775 of 1997 but the same was withdrawn.
22. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions in support of his appeal:--
(i) That the F.I.R. Was not registered at police station and it was based on the statement Exh.P.A.
23. Recorded by Muhammad Sadiq, Inspector at Morr Eminabad which shows that the case was registered after preliminary inquiry with deliberation and consultation.
(ii) That the post-mortem examination was conducted on the next day which shows that the inquest report and other police papers were not prepared and the post-mortem examination was delayed awaiting for receipt of the police papers.
(iii) That the motive is not proved. Ijaz Ahmad who had the dispute over amount of committee has not been examined by the prosecution.
(iv) That Khushi Muhammad, P.W.2 is real uncle and step-father of the deceased and Sultan Mehmood, P.W.3 is sister's son of the complainant and works at a distance of 40/50 miles from the place of occurrence. The statement of Sarfraz Khan, P.W.4 was recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.
24. After 8 days of the occurrence and Tariq Nadeem, P.W.5 was a chance witness; the testimony of these P.Ws. i,e, eye-witnesses have not been corroborated from any independent source and they are not truthful witness.
(v) That the blood-stained earth was taken into possession by the Investigating officer only from one place where deceased was injured and not from the places where the P.Ws. Received the injuries and their blood-stained clothes were also not taken into possession which shows that the injuries on these P.Ws. Namely, Sultan Mehmood, P.W.3, Sarfraz Khan, P.W.4 and Nadeem Tariq, P.W.5 were fabricated. Khushi Muhammad was not injured which shows that he had not witnessed the occurrence and was subsequently introduced. The witnesses are inimical as prior to the instant occurrence the appellant was caused injuries by the complainant party and one shot on each P.W.
25. Has been attributed to make the case doubtful.
(vi) That no empty was taken into possession from the spot, therefore, recovery of licensed rifle from the appellant does not corroborate the prosecution story.
(vii) That according to the medico-legal report three bones were fractured which shows that the injury was caused with blunt weapon. Moreover, bullet or metallic pieces were not recovered from the body which means that the fatal injury was not caused by rifle.
26. (viii)That two co-accused have been acquitted by disbelieving the same evidence.
27. ' Lastly learned counsel for the appellant in alternate has argued that it is not a case of capital punishment and he prays for lesser sentence on the ground that:-
(a) motive has not been proved by not examining Ijaz Khan and has placed reliance on--- ' Gul Khan and another v. State 2000 SCM R 400, Feroze Khan v. State 2002 SCM R 99, Jehanzeb and another v. State and others 2003 SCM R 98 and Mirza Zaheer Ahmad v. State 2003 SCM R 1164.
(b) According to the prosecution story the appellant acted on the Lalkara of his father Sarfraz Baig, therefore, he was under the command of his father and by placing reliance on-- ' Zia Ullah v. The State 1993 SCM R 155, Mrs. Hafeezan Bibi v. Muhammad Tufail and others 1995 SCM R 256 and Nazir Ahmad v. The State 1999 SCM R 396.
28. ' It has been argued that the capital punishment is not called for.
(c) Nothing has been brought on record that how the occurrence was initiated. The accused were sitting in front of their own house where the deceased and the P.Ws. Arrived and they might have caused some kind of provocation, on which, the occurrence took place, therefore, it has been prayed that the sentence be altered from death to imprisonment for life.
29. ' The appeal has been opposed by learned counsel for the State who has supported the impugned judgment.
30. ' We have given our due consideration to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and also examined the record as well as case-law referred to at the bar.
31. ' The occurrence took place at 10 a.m. On 22-7-1994 day light and matter was reported to the police station at 12-35 p.m. According to Dr. Muhammad Fiaz, P.W.10 Shahzad Faisal, Sultan Mehmood, Sarfraz Khan and Nadeem Tariq were examined at 10-40 a.m. Before the statement of Khushi Muhammad was recorded by Muhammad Sadiq, Inspector P.W.12 and the medico-legal reports were produced before the Investigating Officer and their numbers have been duly mentioned in the statement Exh.P.A. Of Khushi Muhammad. All these facts lead us to believe that the matter was reported to the police promptly nominating the appellant with specific role and there was no chance for deliberation or consultations. According to the complainant a quarrel took place between Intizar Baig, Arif Baig and Sarfraz Baig on one side and Ijaz Khan, Sarfraz Khan, Sultan Mehmood on the other side but they were separated and Arif Baig, appellant left the place while extending the threats that he will take revenge for his insult. It is also stated by the complainant in the F.I.R. That on next day at 10 a.m. The accused way laid in front of their house when Sarfraz Khan, P.W.4, Sultan Mehmood, P.W.3 were going towards their houses. Shahbaz deceased was behind them and they were attacked by the accused. Although the motive was not against Shahbaz deceased but as he was going along with Sarfraz Khan and Sultan Mehmood, therefore, he received the fatal shot at the hands of Arif Baig, appellant. Sarfraz Khan and Ijaz Khan both had dispute over payment of committee with the appellant and Sarfraz Khan has been duly examined as P.W.4 and he alleged the motive even the defence plea was that the appellant was injured by the complainant party, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that the motive urged has not been proved and sentence be altered, has no force. Sultan Mehmood, P.W.3 and Sarfraz Khan, P.W.4 were seriously injured and they were referred to Services Hospital, Lahore where according to Muhammad Sadiq, Inspector P.W.12 he approached the Medical Superintendent through written application for recording their statements on 23-7-1994 but it was reported by the Medical Superintendent that they were not fit to make their statements. Thereafter, on 30-7-1994 he again went to Service Hospital and recorded the statements of Sultan Mehmood and Sarfraz Khan under section 161, Cr.P.C. The fire-arm injury received by Sultan Mehmood, P.W.3 was on his chest while on Sarfraz Khan was on outer side of his upper side of right thigh and due to grievous fire-arm injuries they were referred to Services Hospital, Lahore and the fire-arm injuries on Nadeem Tariq, P.W.5 was on the back side of right leg which were attributed to Intizar Hussain. All the three P.Ws. Namely Sultan Mehmood, P.W.3, Sarfraz Khan, P.W.4 and Nadeem Tariq, P.W.5 received grievous fire-arm injuries and those cannot be self-suffered or fabricated and their presence at the spot cannot be doubted. Sultan Mehmood, P.W.3 is although nephew of the complainant but has no previous enmity with the accused party to be termed as inimical or interested witnesses. By mere relationship with the complainant or the deceased is no ground to discard his testimony. Sarfraz Khan, P.W.4 and Nadeem Tariq, P.W.5 are independent witnesses. They have furnished sufficient explanation for their presence at the spot, therefore, they are truthful witnesses and there is no material contradiction in their statements. If the Investigating officer has not taken the blood- stained earth from the places where they were caused injuries or not taken their blood-stained clothes into possession may be due to inefficiency of the Investigating Officer but the presence of the injured P.Ws. Cannot be doubted. We also do not find any contradiction in the medical evidence or the ocular account. The medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular account furnished by Sultan Mehmood, P.W.3; Sarfraz Khan, P.W.4 and Nadeem Tariq, P.W.5 and the prosecution case is established beyond any shadow of doubt and we do not find any reason to interfere in the conviction recorded against the appellant.
32. ' As far as prayer for reduction in sentence is concerned, as we have already concluded that the motive has been narrated by Sarfraz Khan, P.W.4 and it is settled law that the weakness or absence of the motive is no ground for awarding lesser punishment. The case-law referred to by learned counsel for the appellant on this point is distinguishable. The appellant along with his co-accused way laid the complainant party and launched attack. The appellant participated in the occurrence duly armed with rifle and caused successive injuries to the deceased and the P.Ws., therefore, he does not deserve any leniency under the cover that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment and that he might have acted under the command of his father. It was a pre-planned deliberate attack launched after they way-laid, duly armed, by sharing common intention, therefore, question of acting under command of father does not arise. We do not find any mitigating circumstance for awarding lesser sentence. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence is maintained.
33. ' Murder Reference No,160 of 1998 is answered in affirmative.