Mian Muhammad Ajmal, J.--This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawlpur Bench, Bahawalpur dated 10.7.2000, whereby appeal of the appellants against their conviction and sentences was dismissed and their death sentence was confirmed.
2. Brief facts as per F.I.R. are that on 7.4.1994 at about 8.00 a.m., Shahru complainant alongwith Subhan Ali and Muhammad Afzal went to Chowk Mahi for cutting of wood and when they reached Zila Tax Check Post, Chowk Mahi, they saw Ghulam Ali, brother of the complainant and Muhammad Panah sitting on the chairs, the former was reading the newspaper. In the meantime, Mewa son of Sadu, Ismail son of Mewa, Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Akmal sons of Umar armed with firearms reached there. Mewa raised lalkara that Ghulam Ali and Muhammad Panah be taught a lesson for disputing over the land whereupon Muhammad Ismail fired with his 12-bore pistol at Ghulam Ali which hit him on his right flank. Muhammad Akbar fired a shot with his pistol hitting Ghulam Ali on his back. Muhammad Akmal fired at Muhammad Panah with his .12-bore pistol, hitting him on his left shoulder. As a result of which both the injured i,e, Ghulam Ali and Muhammad Panah fell on the ground. The complainant and his companions tried to apprehend the accused whereupon Mewa inflicted butt blow on the forehead of Subhan Ali, whereafter the accused decamped from the spot. Ghulam Ali succumbed to the injuries at the spot while Muhammad Panah and Subhan injured were taken to Hospital. Motive was the dispute of land between Mewa etc. accused and Ghulam Ali deceased and Muhammad Panah injured. A case under Section 302/34/109 PPC was registered against the accused. After investigation the challan was put in the trial Court against the aforesaid four accused. They were charged by the trial Court under 'Section 302/337-A(i)/337-F(v)/34 PPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. wherein they took the plea that they have been implicated due to enmity and suspicion. None of the accused got his statement recorded under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any witness in his defence. The trial Court, on assessm ent of the evidence convicted Muhammad Ismail and Muhammad Akbar, the appellants under Section 302(b) PPC vide its judgment dated 3.7.1997 and sentenced them to death as Ta'zir. Vide the same judgment Muhammad Akmal was convicted under Section 337-F (v)
PPC and was sentenced to one year R.I. and to pay Daman of Rs, 10,000/- and it was ordered that till payment of Daman he should not be released. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to him. Mewa accused was, however, acquitted on benefit of doubt. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur through Criminal Appeal No, 85/1997/BWP the trial Court referred Murder Reference for confirmation of the death sentences of the appellants and the complainant filed Criminal Appeal No, 92/1997 against Muhammad Akmal and Mewa for convicting them under Section 302/34 PPC for the murder of Ghulam Ali. A learned Division Bench of the High Court vide its judgment dated 10.7.2000 dismissed the appeal of the appellants, confirmed their death - sentences and answered the reference in the affirmative. The appeal of the complainant was allowed to the extent of Muhammad Akmal whose sentence was enhanced from one year to five years R.I. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentences before this Court through Criminal Petition No, 435-L/2000, wherein leave was granted to consider whether the material available on record justify the normal penalty of death or the ends of justice would have met if the appellants were awarded lesser penalty of life imprisonment.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length and have gone through the record of the case.. As per leave granting order, leave was granted to the appellants only on the question of sentence, hence learned counsel confined his arguments for lesser punishment on the plea that motive as alleged in the F.I.R. with regard to dispute over agricultural land was not proved on record, thus, the motive was shrouded in mystery which was a sufficient ground for lesser punishment and the appellants should not have been awarded the capital punishment. On the other hand the learned A.A.G. contended that it was a pre-planned murder as the appellants came to the spot duly armed with fire-arms and on reaching there Muhammad Ismail fired a shot which hit Ghulam Ali on his right flank and Akbar appellant fired second shot which hit him on his back, as a result of which he died at the spot. He submitted that prosecution has proved its case through reliable and trustworthy evidence including the motive, as such, the appellants were rightly convicted and suitably sentenced. He submitted that inadequacy or weakness of motive or motive being shrouded in mystery, cannot be pressed into service for lesser punishment as proof of motive is not a legal requirement for awarding capital punishment if the prosecution has proved its case beyond any doubt nor such a plea constitutes a mitigating circumstance.
4. As for the contention that motive has not been proved or it was shrouded in mystery, it has no force. Motive as alleged in the F.I.R. was reiterated by the complainant (PW9) in his statement before the Court stating that the motive was the land dispute between the deceased and the accused. In cross-examination, he stated that the said dispute had been adjudicated upon in favour of the victim party. This statement was given in cross-examination, therefore, it was admissible and could be used against the appellants. His statement regarding motive also finds support from the evidence of PW 10 and 11, thus, motive as alleged in the F.I.R. was proved by the prosecution. During the trial, the defence introduced another motive in cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased had illicit relations with the daughter of Mewa accused and suggestions were put to the witnesses in this regard which were denied by them. The trial Court as well as the learned High Court keeping in view the latest law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements that when prosecution proves its case through reliable and trustworthy evidence beyond any doubt, inadequacy or weakness of motive or where motive was alleged but not proved, would become immaterial and would not adversely affect prosecution case and normal penalty of death can be imposed on the assailants if there were no mitigating or extenuating circumstances for lesser penalty.
5. In case of Abdul Wahab alias Rehra vs. The State (1999 SCM R 1668), this Court after considering the case law has very elaborately dealt with the proposition whether 'Motive shrouded in mystery' can be deemed to be a mitigating circumstance and whether motive could play and effective role on the question of quantum of sentence when the prosecution has established its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The conclusion was drawn as under: "Motive shrouded in mystery' is not a legal principle which can be applied in all murder cases for reduction of capital sentence where there is no motive alleged/proved by the prosecution or where initially a motive is alleged but the same is not proved or withdrawn or a different motive appears to the prosecution evidence, 'Motive shrouded in mystery' by itself is not a mitigating circumstance for lesser sentence. Where there is no motive alleged but the guilt of the accused is otherwise established on the basis of evidence, it could be said that in such a case the motive is 'shrouded in mystery and that it cannot be said as to what was the precise and immediate reason for the murder. But in Talib Hussain vs. The State (supra) it was observed by this Court that there is no legal requirement that in order to award maximum penalty of death in a murder case, the motive should be alleged and proved and that if the prosecution proves the case against an accused in a murder case beyond reasonable doubt, the normal sentence is death. It was further observed that if the normal sentence was not awarded, the Court is required to make out a case for reduction of sentence on the basis of mitigating circumstances. Therefore, in murder cases where no motive is alleged, the same remains shrouded in mystery, yet, if the prosecution establishes its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the normal sentence awarded in such case is death, unless there are mitigating circumstances justifying award of lesser sentence. "
"It was also observed in Talib Hussain vs. State (supra) that, even where the alleged motive is too weak but the case is otherwise established beyond reasonable doubt, the normal sentence is death. In such a case also it could be argued that the motive in the case was shrouded in mystery; yet in such cases also the normal sentence in a proved case is death."
When the plea is advanced that motive is shrouded in mystery, evidence of circumstances should be such that there is a definite indication or inference that murder must have taken place on account of provocation or other reason of the kind that could be considered as mitigating circumstances for reduction of sentence, but merely advancing a plea that the motive is shrouded in mystery by itself is not sufficient to make out a case for lesser sentence. Facts and circumstances of each case are considered to find out whether there are any mitigating circumstances justifying reduction of sentence."
"We would reiterate that in a case of cold-blooded premeditated murder which results in the loss of one or more innocent lives, the contention for lesser sentence should not be accepted only on the ground that the motive is shrouded in mystery unless there is other evidence or circumstances which definitely indicate that there was provocation or reason for the murder which could be considered as a mitigating circumstances."
"However, in our view, in the present case motive does not play any effective role on the question of sentence as it has been established beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence that the appellant had committed a premeditated cold-blooded murder in a very brutal manner."
In Nawab Ali vs. The State (2001 SCM R 726), it has been held :-- "8. It has been held time and again by this Court that in case of lack of motive altogether or if the prosecution is unable to prove motive, for murder, it does not affect the imposition of normal penalty of death in murder case if the prosecution otherwise has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reference may be made to Ahmad Nisar vs. The State (1977 SCM R 175) wherein this Court observed as follows: "Generally speaking motive, more or less, is guess on the part of the prosecution witnesses. What truly motivates an accused person to commit a crime is best known to him and not to others.
Absence of motive or failure on the part of the prosecution to prove it does not, therefore, adversely affect the testimony of the eye-witnesses if they be otherwise reliable."
This Court in case of Imtiaz Ahmad vs. The State (2001 SCM R 1334) observed as under: It may also be observed that allegations and proof of motive are not legal requirements for awarding maximum penalty of death in murder case when the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant accused beyond reasonable doubt as in the instant case considering also the fact that in the dispensation of criminal justice, decision of the case must not be taken in relation to accused's case but must rest on the examination of entire evidence" in view of principles in Woolmingtin's case 1935 AC 462. Reference may be made to Talib Hussain vs. State (1995 SCM R 1776), so also even in case of weak motive when there has been otherwise strong and reliable evidence, motive would not come in the way of the case of prosecution. Reference may be made to State vs. Sobharo 1993 SCM R 585."
In Hameed Khan alias Hameedai vs. Ashraf Shah and another (2002 SCM R 1155), this Court observed: "The presence of the petitioner with fire-arm at the spot at the relevant time shows that the crime was premeditated and pre-planned. Sometime atrocious crimes are committed without any motive or for very minor motive as such adequacy or weakness of the motive or where motive is alleged but not proved, in such cases it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the prosecution evidence carefully. If the ocular evidence is trustworthy and reliable the motive part becomes immaterial as motive is a guess of the complainant who speculates that such motive might have motivated the assailant to commit the crime as the real motive is only known to the offender being within his exclusive knowledge. Absence of motive or failure to prove the motive would not adversely affect the prosecution case if prosecution has proved its case by reliable and trustworthy evidence beyond any doubt. We do not find any mitigating or extenuating circumstance for reducing the normal penalty of death to lesser penalty."
In the present case, the prosecution has abundantly proved its case through reliable and trustworthy evidence against the appellants who effectively fired at the deceased causing him fatal injuries which according to Dr. Muhammad Mubashir Ch. (PW4) were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence on record awarded death penalty to the appellants which was upheld by the learned High Court vide impugned judgment which in view of the above discussion warrants no interference by this Court.
Consequently this appeal is dismissed.