2004 PLP 662 (SCMR)

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.

Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 3-10-2002 whereby a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed Criminal Appeal No.570 of 1998 filed by the petitioner and answered Murder Reference No.288 of 1998 sent by the learned trial Judge in affirmative by confirming his death sentence in a case emanated out of F.I.R. No.111 registered on 26-11-1995 at 8-45 p.m. under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Sohdhra, District Gujranwala, for an occurrence stated to have taken place earlier at 7-00 p.m. We need not give the facts of the case as the same have been narrated in detail in the judgments of the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as of the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence brought on record with their assistance. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, produced 11 witnesses. The petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. took up the plea that the murder had been committed by some unknown person on account of the deceased's habit of sodomy. His statement in this respect was as under:-- "The P.Ws. are closely related to the deceased, Liaqat deceased was a habitual sodomist. He wanted to commit sodomy with Asif accused. He was forbidden by the three accused and that on that account, a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased two days before the occurrence. The deceased was murdered by his some unknown enemy on account of his habit of sodomy. The accused have been falsely involved in this case due to suspicion on account of previous quarrel." He also produced Muhammad Nazeer (D.W.1) who stated that he had seen the deceased committing sodomy with one Jamil in the graveyard. However, nothing has been brought on record that ever any case was registered against the deceased in this regard nor there is anything on record that the deceased had quarrelled with any inmate of the village on any issue. The defence witness did not utter a single word favouring the petitioner qua his implication in the present case. On the contrary, F.I.R. of the instant occurrence was recorded with promptitude; the occurrence is stated to have taken place at 7-00 p.m. while the F.I.R. was got lodged at 8-45 p.m. describing all the details. The ocular account has been narrated in its material particulars by Shaukat Ali (P.W.1) and Muhammad Saleem (P.W.4). Their testimony inspires confidence and cannot be discarded simply because of their relationship with the deceased. Nothing has been brought on record why these witnesses would implicate the petitioner in place of, the real culprits in a case entailing capital punishment particularly when no malice or ill-will for the same has been brought on record. The ocular version is totally in line with the medical evidence. The eye-witnesses have deposed in their statements that the co-accused held the deceased from his arms and neck whereupon the present petitioner inflicted as many as 14 injuries with his knife on the person of the deceased. All these injuries were on the left side and vital parts of his body. Had the deceased been not caught by the co-accused of the petitioner, he would certainly have not sustained the injuries only on one side of the body. In that eventuality he could have moved so as to avoid the injuries and in that view of the matter, the injuries would not have been suffered only on one side of the body. Dr. Muhammad Akram (P.W.5), who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, confirmed this determination. Furthermore, the incriminating weapon, which was recovered at the instance of the petitioner, was found stained with blood. The motive part of the case is not only admitted by the petitioner but is also reflected from his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. As far as the plea of lesser sentence is concerned, the same is not available to him in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner has killed the deceased in a brutal and barbaric manner and inflicted as many as 14 sharp-edged injuries all on the left side of his body and that too on the vital parts and he does not deserve for any leniency. Findings recorded by the High Court seem to be sound and reasonable.

6. These two petitions are, therefore, dismissed and leave is declined. N.H.Q./M-35/S Leave refused.