' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,2049 of 2002 filed by Muhammad Imran and Criminal Appeal No,2119 of 2002 filed by Amjad Ali, appellants. Both the appellants were convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life with further direction to pay Rs,50,000 each, in default six months' R.I. With the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The conviction and sentence was recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura vide judgment, dated 23-12-2002.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that at 9-30 a.m. On 24-11-2001 when Muhammad Farooq (deceased) alongwith his brother Maqsood Ahmad reached in front of house of Ghulam Rasul, accused Imran armed with dagger, Amjad armed with dagger and Irfan empty-handed emerged.
Irfan raised Lalkara upon which Imran gave two daggers blows which hit on the left side of chest of Farooq. Two daggers blows caused by Amjad landed on right flank and left buttock of the deceased Farooq.
' The motive alleged was that at night time, prior to the day of occurrence, altercation took.Place between Imran, Amjad and Muhammad Farooq, on seeing the film in the shop of Muhammad Rashid but the matter was compromised. It was further alleged that accused kept grudge in their mind and as such with their common intention committed the murder of Muhammad Farooq.
3. Investigation of the case was taken up by Ghulam Nabi, S.-I. (P.W.8). He after sending the complaint Exh.P.E. To the police station; inspected the dead body, prepared inquest report Exh.P.G., took into possession the blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.F. And on 9-12-2001 arrested Muhammad Imran and Amjad Ali. The accused Imran on 23-12-2001 while in custody led to the recovery of dagger P.3 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.K. On the same day, Amjad Ali got recovered dagger P.4 which was secured vide memo. Exh.P.L. After completion of the investigation, all the three accused named in the F.I.R. Were challaned to face the trial.
4. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 12 witnesses in all. Then Rai Mushtaq Ahmad learned A.D.A. Tendered in evidence reports of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.M. To Exh.P.O.
Reports of the Serologist Exh.P.P. To Exh.P.R. And closed the case of the prosecution. Statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded. False implication.
However, after conclusion of the trial, Muhammad Irfan was acquitted while the remaining two accused were convicted and sentenced as stated above.
5. Learned counsel for Muhammad Imran, appellant submits that Zahid Anjum and Muhammad Ahmad, P.Ws. Have not stated even a single word about the involvement of Imran and Amjad appellants and that both these P.Ws. Also stated that the complainant was not present at the place and time of occurrence and came late. Further submits that Muhammad Ahmad P.W. Stated that it was a blind murder and that the deceased was addict and had many quarrels with many people from which he used to get intoxicant.
' As far as recovery from the appellant Irnran is concerned, learned counsel submits that not a single person from public was produced before the trial Court and only the Investigating Officer of the case appeared to prove the recovery from the appellant.
' Learned counsel submits that the F.I.R. Was recorded after due inquiry and deliberation and that too not at the spot but in the police station. Further submits that in fact it was one Khalil who had lodged the F.I.R. And not the complainant Maqsood. Lastly submits that Irfan having similar role to that of the appellant Imran, he is also entitled to acquittal.
6. Learned counsel for Amjad Ali appellant adopts the arguments advanced by learned counsel for Imran appellant with further submission that the F.I.R. Was recorded after inquiry and deliberation, how the Police Officer reached at the spot is shrouded in mystery, in fact the F.I.R. Was recorded on the instructions of one Khalil an ex-Police Officer, the village is divided into two castes, that's Jat and Kamboh, Zahid Anjum and, Muhammad Ahmad P.Ws. Were not got declared hostile by the A.D.A. And that when there is even one per cent. Doubt, the benefit of that should go to the accused.
7. Learned counsel for the State supports the judgment of the trial Court and submits that Maqsood Ahmad, complainant has fully implicated both the appellants and that the ocular account is fully corroborated by the medical evidence.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. In the instant case, complainant Maqsood is real brother of the deceased Muhammad Farooq. The occurrence had taken place at 9-30 a.m. On 24-11-2001, that's in broad-daylight in a village surrounded by houses. The complaint was A made at 11 a.m. On .The same day and the formal F.I.R. Was recorded at 11-30 a.m. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at 9 a.m.
On 25-11-2001. The time given by the doctor between the death and the postmortem was 24 hours, which fits in with the time of occurrence given by the prosecution. There was no previous background of enmity between the appellants as well as the complainant. The defence produced no Qral or documentary evidence in this regard. There was no occasion for the complainant to have falsely deposed against the appellants. The complainant Maqsood Ahmad has fully implicated both the appellants for having caused two daggers blows each on the person of the deceased. The ocular account given by the complainant is fully corroborated by medical evidence.
Zahid Anjum P.W. Has not attributed any injury on the person of the deceased to lmran appellant but attributed injuries to Amjad Ali, appellant. Muhammad Ahmad P.W. Stated that lie did not see any of the appellant at the spot. The Court has to see the quality and not the quantity of evidence.
In the case of Allah Bakhsh v. Shammi and others PLD 1980 SC 225 it was ruled by Full Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court as under:-- ' "The general principle, is that even in a murder case conviction can be based on testimony of a single witness, if the Court is satisfied that the said witness is reliable. In othel words, the emphasis is only the quality of evidence and not on its quantity."
' Unfortunately, it is a case, which has been very badly, conducted by the prosecution specially the A.D.A. He should have declared Zahid Anjum and Muhammad Ahmad P. Ws. Hostile and cross- examined them. Even the learned trial Court did not bother about it and did not take interest in the manner. I am loathed to observe that such-like cases under section 302, P.P.C. Ought not to be dealt in such-like manner. Some questions which should have been put to the complainant by defence counsel were never asked as he was the right witness to answer those questions but those questions were put to the witnesses who were not supporting the case and were bent upon to give undue concessions to the prosecution by stating the deceased was addict, he was dealing with narcotics and had quarrels with many persons. When a witness does not support the case of the prosecution, he will answer all the questions put to him by the defence in affirmative. This Court cannot close its eyes as to what has happened in this case before the trial Court.
' For the purpose of recovery, it is now well-settled that police officials are as good witnesses as a public witness. I have gone through the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologists. As far as delay in sending the parcels to the office of the Chemical Examiner is concerned, Nazar Hussain P. W.1 has explained the same by stating that Moharrar of the police station handed over an application for issuance of docket of daggers and after getting the docket issued on 29-12-2001 he redeposited the application with the Moharrar and again on 14-2-2002, the Moharrar handed over to him two sealed parcels said to contain daggers for their onward transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner. During the cross-examination, the defence itself brought on record that due to emergency duty, the above said parcels could not be deposited in time. Reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologists are positive in nature. So the medical evidence does not only corroborate the ocular account but also from the recovery and positive reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologists.
' The matter having been reported to the police without any delay, motive proved as held by the trial Court itself, ocular account is fully corroborated by medical evidence and so the recovery, I am fully convinced that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. Both the appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants by the trial Court is maintained in toto.
' Before parting with this judgment, I am at pains to observe that the learned trial Court while awarding sentence of imprisonment for life did not mention any fact, such as, motive, recovery, premeditation, not taking undue advantage or any other factor to be a mitigating circumstance.
The law of the land is that normal sentence for an offence of murder is death which is to be awarded as a matter of course except where the Court finds some mitigating circumstance which may warrant imposition of lesser sentence.
' Let a copy of this judgment be sent to learned Additional Sessions Judge through the Registrar of this Court with direction to explain as to why he has not given any reasons for deviating from normal course. The future course of action shall be decided thereafter. A copy of this judgment shall also be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura.
' A copy of this judgment be also sent to Secretary Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Department, Lahore about the conduct of Mushtaq Ahmad, the then A.D.A. Who conducted the trial on behalf of the prosecution in an unprofessional manner for some ulterior motives or for the reasons best known to him. As to action taken against Rai Mushtaq Ahmad, A.D.A. By the Law Secretary, a report shall be submitted to this Court through Deputy Registrar (J.)