1976 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL JABBAR KHAN, J.‑‑‑Allah Ditta alias Ditta son of Allah Dad (35), Fateh Muhammad alias Fatta son of Allah Dad (30), Khushi Muhammad alias Khushia son of Sardara (21) and Muhammad Sadiq son of Nawab (30), were tried under section 302/201 /436/34, P. P. C., by the learned Sessions Judge, Multan, for committing the murder of Faiz Ahmad deceased and his son Nazir Ahmad and setting on fire the dhari of Faiz Ahmad deceased while putting the dead bodies into it in order to destroy the evidence of murder against them. Vide his judgment dated 21st October, 1968, the learned trial Judge convicted them under section 3012/201/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to transportation for life each under section 302/34, P. P. C., and to seven years' R.I. each under section 201 /34, P. P. C. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. Muhammad Sadiq has filed Criminal Appeal No. 841 of 1968 while Allah Ditta, Fateh Muhammad and Khushi Muhammad, have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 872 of 1968, against their conviction and sentences. While exercising the suo motu powers, the learned Single Judge on 28‑9‑1972 while dealing with the appeals of the accused persons, vide Cr. Revision No. 466/73, ordered the issuance of notice to the accused to show cause why their sentence under section 302/34, P. P. C., should not be enhanced. We will dispose of the two appeals as well as the revision petition (Cr. Revision No. 466/73) by a single judgment.

2. The occurrence took place on the night between 4/5‑4‑1967 at the Behni of Sardara situated in the area of Chak No. 515/E. B., Police Station Burewala. The venue of crime was situated at a distance of three miles from the Police station, Burewala. F.

1. R., Exh. P A was recorded by Ghulam Muhammad A. S. I. P. W. 14 at 6.00 a.m. on 5‑4‑1957, at the instance of Imam Din P. W. 12, a resident of the same Chak.

3. The brief facts of the case according to the F. I. R. are as follows :‑‑‑ It was stated by Imam Din P. W. 12 that while sleeping alongwith Mehr Din P. W. 13, in square No. 51, contiguous to the land of Faiz Ahmad deceased, to look after his cattle, he was awakened at the dead of night on the hue and cry emanating from the dhari of Faiz Ahmad deceased. He alongwith Mehr Din P. W. ran towards the said dhari and saw that a still serf liquor working in a Kacha house where a lantern was burning. Beside this what he saw was that Faiz Ahmad deceased was being given a toka and hatchet blows by Allah Ditta and Muhammad Sadiq. appellants, respectively within his view Faiz Ahrnad deceased fell down after receiving injuries at the Hands of his assailants with their respective weapons. He also witnessed that Allah Ditta appellant also gave toka blows on the neck of Faiz Ahmad deceased while he had fallen on the ground. At the same time he found Fateh Muhammad appellant inflicting blows on Nazir Ahmad deceased, the son of Faiz Ahmad deceased, with a Kapa in his hand while Khushi Muhammad appellant who was empty‑handed, was holding Nazir Ahmad deceased in order to facilitate the commission of crime. Allah Ditta appellant also joined Fatah Muhammad appellant and inflicted few blows with his toka, on Nazir Ahmad who died by the impact of blows, at the spot. This witness informed the police that he alongwith his companion Mehr Din P. W. had implored the assailants from the very outset of their arrival to desist from killing the deceased but were told that if they would intervene, they would receive the same treatment at the hands of the appell ants. After they were threatened with dire consequences, the complainant alongwith his companions retired to the back side of the wall of the house where the murders were being committed and kept on watching from two big holes which existed already in that wall. They also saw Allah Ditta and Muhammad Sadiq appellants dragging the dead body of Faiz Ahmad and Fatah Muhammad and Khushi Muhammad appellants pulling the legs of Nasir Ahmad deceased nearby the dhari which was made of sarkanda. When the dead bodies were dragged into that dhari, Allah Ditta, Muhammad Sadiq and Fateh Muhammad, asked Khushi Muhammad to set fire to the thatched roof of that dhari so that the bodies should be burnt. Khushi Muhammad appellant collected the pulp of sugar‑cane sticks which were already lying at that place and by throwing the same on the dead bodies, set these on fire. Meanwhile Khan Muhammad P. W. I1 was attracted to the spot when he saw flames rising out of the said dhari. He also saw Allah Ditta, Muhammad Sadiq, Fateh Muhammad and Khushi Muhammad appellants standing near the place to which they had set fire. Khan Muhammad P. W.

11. Imam Din P. W. 12 and Mehr Din P. W. 13, then left the spot and informed Mutali P. W. 8 and Mumtaz Ali Shah P. W 9, both Lambardars of the Chak regarding this incident. The Lambardars when apprised of the situation despatched Barkat Chaukidar alongwith the complainant to the Police Station. The motive for the crime is stated to be that Sardara, father of Faiz Ahmad deceased had married Mst.Imam Bibi, widow of his brother Allah Dad after the death of his first wife Mst. Rehmatay. Allah Ditta and Fateh Muhammad appellants were sons of Mst. Imam Bibi from her previous husband Allah Dad. She also gave birth to Khushi Muhammad appellant from Sardara, father of Faiz Ahmad deceased. After the death of the Allah Dad his sons Allah Ditta and Fatah Muhammad appellants inherited half square of land from their father while remaining half square was under the ownership of Sardara, their step‑father. Out of this half square of land which was the entitlement of their step‑father Sardara, Faiz Ahmad deceased who was son of Sardara from Mst. Rehmatay, had taken forcible possession of 6 acres of land. Due to this high handedness on the part of Faiz Ahmad, Sardara and Khushi Muhammad appellant, the utrine brother of Faiz Ahmad deceased, had turned out Faiz Ahmad from the Chak. Kbushi Muhammad appellant was always chaffing of this highhandedness on the part of Faiz Ahmad deceased who had deprived him and his father from this piece of land and therefore, due to this annoyance, he with the help of his other brothers Allah Ditta, Fateh Muhammad and Muhammad Sadiq, his bosom‑friend, planned the murders of Faiz Ahmad and his son Nazir Ahmad deceased and succeeded in doing away with them and burning their bodies in order to remove them once for ever and grab their land.

4. Ghulam Muhammad S. I., P. W. 14, after recording the statement of Imam Din accompanied him to the spot. He found the dead bodies of the deceased lying in the dhari of Faiz Ahmad deceased. He prepared inquest reports Exh. P T and Exh. P U, respectively of Faiz Ahmad and Nazir Ahmad deceased. Similarly, he prepared injury statements P. V and Exh. P W of Faiz Ahmad and Nazir Ahmad deceased respectively. He entrusted the dead bodies to Siraj Din and Muhammad Sadiq constables for escorting them to the mortuary for post‑mortem examination. He collected some blood‑stained earth from the place where Faiz Ahmad deceased was killed and took the same into possession vide memo Exh. P B and from the place where Nazir Ahmad deceased had been murdered, vide memo Exh. P C. A cut thumb of Faiz Ahmad deceased was lying at the place of occurrence which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PD. He also took into possession lantern P. 1, a tin P. 2 containing Lahan, seven pieces of brick P. 3/1‑7, three pieces of partly burnt wood P 1/1‑3 and five pieces of broken pitcher P. 5 vide memo Exh. P E. A bottle containing liquor was also taken into possession vide memo Exh. P H. He also removed ashes from the place where the dead bodies had been burnt and took into possession vide memo Exh. P G. Fateh Muhammad, Khushi Muhammad and Muhammad Sadiq appellants appeared before the S. 1. who formally arrested them while Allah Ditta accused was arrested in the evening on the same day. The S. I. got removed blood‑stained loin‑clothes P. 11, P. 12 and P. 13 from the persons of Fateh Muhammad, Muhammad Sadiq and Allah Ditta appellants vide memos Exh. P N, P O and P Q, respectively. Fateh Muhammad appellant led the police to the recovery of blood‑stained Kapa P. 8 from underneath the stalk of cotton, which was taken into possession vide memo Exh. P.J. Blood‑stained hatchet P. 9 was also got recovered at the instance of Muhammad Sadiq appellant from near a tree buried in the ground and was taken into posses sion vide memo Ex. PK. Similarly Allah Ditta appellant got recovered blood‑stained toka P. 10 and the same was taken into possession vide memo Exh. PL. The S. I. also recovered gun P. 17 alongwith its licence from Allah Ditta appellant and took them into possession vide memo Exh. PM. Site plans Exh. PX. PX/1 and PX/2 were got prepared by the Investigating Officer from the Patwari, relating to the place of occurrence.

5. Dr. Musbtaq Ahmad P. W. 1, on 6th April, 1967, performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Faiz Ahmad deceased and found the following injuries on his person :‑ (1) An incised wound 3 " x 2" on the front of neck cutting the trichea, oesophagus and the left and right carotid arteries. (2) An incised wound 5" x 2 " on the right side of face cutting portion of right ear and jaw bones. (3) An incised wound 5" x 2" x " behind injury No. 2 cutting the mastoid bone of skull. (4) An incised wound 4" x 2 " cutting the underline bone on the upper part of shoulders. (5) An incised wound 4" x 2" x 1" on the left side of neck. (6) An incised wound 4" x 1" on the left side of back of head cutting the skull bone. (7) An incised wound 7" x 2 " on the left side of back cutting the scapula bone. (8) An incised wound 3" x 1 " cutting the right thumb on the palm of right hand. (9) An incised wound 3" x 1" x 1" on the left hand. The clotted blood was present on all the wounds.

6. The case of the prosecution rests on the following categories of evidence :‑ (i) the evidence of motive ; (ii) the ocular testimony provided by Imam Din P. W. 12 and Mehr Din P.W.13; (iii) the evidence of recovery of incriminating articles including the weapons of offence at the instance of the appellants; and (iv) the medical evidence. Learned trial Court while finding the evidence of motive as absent, relied on the rest of the categories of evidence and held the appellants responsible for the murders of the deceased.

7. All the appellants while appearing before the Committing Magistrate as well as before the trial Court, denied their participation in the crime and attributed their involvement due to enmity with Muhammad Khan P. W. 7 and his friends. It was further stated that Faiz Ahmad deceased had many other enemies as he was keeping Mst. Hamida with him against the consent of her previous husband who was keen for her restoration.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the State and have perused the record of the case with case and caution. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the case of the prosecution was liable to be disbelieved for the following reasons :‑ (i) that the F. I. R. in this case was registered after a considerable delay which provided time to the complainant party to deliberate and ponder and thus to oblige Muhammad Khan P. W. 7 to rope in the appellants who were his enemies ; (ii) that both the eye‑witnesses namely Imam Din and Mehr Dan were master and servant who had no reason to be present near the place of occurrence. The status of these witnesses was considered to be no better than chance witnesses ; (iii) that Imam Din P. W. 12 was brother‑in‑law of Muhammad Khan P. W. 7 who was inimical towards the appellants and Mehr Din P. W. 13 being servant of Imam Din P. W. was nothing but his masters voice ; (iv) that the manner in which the injuries are stated to be inflicted by the appellants did not find support from the medical evidence. Moreover there was a positive attempt on the part of both these witnesses to bring in line their statements with the description of injuries as found by the doctor during the course of post‑mortem examination conducted on the deceased ; (v) that the deceased in this case were murdered in such a cruel way that it clearly led to a strong inference that the killers had either immense hate in their mind, which was usually generated either to avenge some long standing enmity or to vindicate some past insult of very grave nature. It was argued that as the motive was not believed by the trial Court, thus it could be safely assumed that the appellants would not indulge in this gruesome murder when they had no motive to actuate them to commit this dastardly crime ; (vi) regarding the evidence of recovery of blood‑stained chaddars and weapons of offence at the instance of the appellants. it was contended that it was unworthy of reliance as no independent witness had come forward to support it; and (vii) lastly it was submitted that case of Khushi, Muhammad and Muhammad Sadiq appellants was distinguishable on the ground that the former was not assigned any infliction of injury to any of the deceased as he being empty‑handed while the latter had no community of interest with the other appellants. With regard to the notice of enhancement of sentence by the learned Single Judge of this Court, it was submitted that in view of well‑considered observations of the learned trial Court in paragraph No. 17 of its judgment, such notice was hardly called for crud deserved no serious consideration,

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the learned trial Judge was not justified to hold that no evidence was led on the point of motive for the reason that there was plausible and reliable evidence on the record to show that the appellant Khushi Muhammad had definite motive to commit this crime and had actually committed the same with the help of his brothers Allah Ditta, Fateh Muhammad and a friend Muhammad Sadiq (appellants). It was further submitted that once the learned trial Court had arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt against the appellants, then it had no alternative but to visit them with the penalty of death which was tire normal sentence provided under section 302, P.P.C. for the offence of murder. It was further submitted that as far as the judgment of the trial Court in holding the appellants responsible for these double murders were concerned, it was unassailable from all angles and was liable to be maintained. In view of the learned counsel for the State the prosecution case stood fully established by independent ocular testimony duly corroborated by the recovery of human blood‑stained chaddars alongwith weapons of offence from the appellants supported by the evidence of motive and the medical evidence, While dealing with the plea of mitigating and extenuating circumstance raised by the defence, it was contended that the learned trial Court had no data before it to give such benefit of the same to the appellants who had acted In a most merciless manner in their avid greed for land and deserved no leniency in the matter of sentence. Regarding the clamp of the defence that the case of Muhammad Sadiq and Khushi Muhammad appellants was distinguishable on the ground as stated by it, the same was hotly contested and it was forcefully argued that Muhammad Sadiq appellant had fully participated in the came as he had been attributed fatal injury while Khushi Muhammad was the villain of this gruesome drama of blood and violence as he was the person who had the real motive to annihilate and destroy both father and son.

10. We have given our anxious thoughts to all the contentions raised from both sides and will first deal with the case of the prosecution to assess its intrinsic value and strength following the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that it was always the duty of tile prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused person howsoever absurd was their plea in their defence. In view of the finding of the learned trial Court in paragraph No.11 of its judgment at pages 99/100 of the Paper Book that no sufficient motive was shown for which tire appellants could have gone to the extent of committing two murders of their near relations, we will first of all resolve this issue as it has been seriously contested by the learned counsel for the State. While going through the reasoning of the learned trial court on this point we do not feel persuaded to accept it as convincing. It has come on the record from the very inception of this case in the F. I. R. Exh. NA, a document which was prepared a few hours after the commission of crime that Khushi Muhammad appellants was on the horns of dilemma as how to oust Faiz Ahmad deceased front his forcible possession of 6 killas of land. It was also stated in the said F.I.R that Faiz Ahmad had incurred displeasure of his father Sardara for his act and was turned out by him from the village. We do not find any reason to doubt this version given at the earliest opportunity before the police as we find that maker of it was an independent person who had got no personal enmity against any of the appellants and must have stated that which was made known to him either immediately or after the occurrence by the relations of the deceased or it was a fact within his personal knowledge as member of the same village community. It is pertinent to note that the defence has failed to challenge the statement of this witness on this point although he attributed this motive to the appellants at length in the F I. R. and briefly referred to it in his statement before the trial Court as P. W. 12, This lapse on the part of the defence to challenge his these statements enhances the evidentiary value of his evidence on the point of motive. This aspect of the case on this all important issue of motive has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court as we find that it has failed to consider the evidence of P. W. 12 Imam Din regarding the motive against the appellants and has only discussed the testimony of Mst. Hamidan wife of Faiz Ahmad deceased. Even this discussion of her statement lacks pragmatic; approach by the trial Court as it has based its conclusion on supposition and conjectures losing sight of inevitable situation that there was nothing on the record to show that this witness had some motive to falsely implicate the near relations of her husband. She after giving a straightforward account of relationship inter se of the appellants and the deceased, has stated lit a most unambiguous manner that as Sardara wanted whole of his land for Khushi Muhammad appellant but the same being not available to him as being in possession of Faiz Ahmad deceased, therefore, he was killed by the appellants. While going through the entire cross‑examination of this witness which was led upon her by the defence, we find that ant a single question was put to her so as to stow that she was making a wrong statement on this subject or was suppressing certain material facts due to some sort of animus. Therefore, we fail to understand how the learned trial Court assumed that there was absence of evidence on the point of motive. We are fully convinced after scanning the evidence of Imam Din P W. 12 and Mst Hamidan P. W. 6, both disinterested witnesses that the prosecution has fully established that Khushi Muhammad appellant was bent upon to remove Faiz Ahmad deceased from his way to grab tilts land under his possession. It is a matter of common knowledge that main causes of capital crime in rural society are, land, woman and money. Greed for land has assumed great magnitude in these days and cases are not uncommon where heinous crimes are committed fir much less area involved than in the present case.

11. F. I. R. in this case was registered at 6.00 am. on the same day whereas the murders were committed at some time after midnight. It being cold part of the right, we can visualise the delay on the part of the complainant to reach the Police Station particularly when he had to cover a distance of three miles. This delay further :stands explained in view of the unwillingness of Sardara, the father of Faiz Ahmad deceased to initiate 0a proceedings against Khushi Muhammad, his own son and his other utrine brothers. This reluctance on his part was quite natural as already having suffered loss of a son and a grandson, he would riot be willing to charge another son with capital crime. This reticent behaviour on the part of this old man would have entailed loss of time and this is why we find a neutral person like Imam Din P W. reporting the matter to the police as it would not be possible for him to sit over these murders after witnessing the same. So we are satisfied that delay in this case was natural in view of tile peculiar circumstances of the case and does not cast any reflection on the veracity of those who took sometime to reach the Police Station. For the above reason we find contention of tie defence in this regard as without substance.

12. While dealing with the ocular testimony provided by Imam Din P. W. 12 and Mehr Din P. W. 13, we do not find any cogent reason to differ with the learned trial Court in placing implicit reliance on their evidence. Both these witnesses were in the neighbourhood at the time of the occurrence and their reaching the scene of this crime was quite natural. There is nothing on the record to show that these witnesses had any direct hostility with the appellants, therefore, it is hard to believe that they would fabricate this case at their own, just for the reason that one of them i. e. Imam Din P. W. t2 was related to Muhammad Khan P. W. who had sometime in the past some sort of criminal litigation against one of the appellants. If we pause and assume for a moment that Muhammad Khan P. W. had substituted the present appellants with the real culprits or for these matter had involved them for personal reasons, we would not have found Sardara playing such a dormant part in this affair. If this old man had any doubts about the truth of the allegation against his son Khushi Muhammad, he would have cried at the top of his voice that actual culprits had been let off and his family was being victimized. His complete silence during the entire investigation speaks volume in favour of the prosecution claim and demolishes completely the stand of the appellants that Faiz Ahmad and his son Nazir Ahmad were done to death by Muhammad Din, the ex‑husband of Mst. Hamidan P. W.

13. The injuries on the persons of the deceased as stated by the eye‑witnesses in this case are fully borne out by the medical evidence provided by Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad P. W.

1. All the injuries, according to this witness were caused by a sharp edged weapon. The eye‑witnesses in this case have stated that Allah Ditta and Muhammad Sadiq appellants were armed with toka and hatchet respectively, whereas Fateh Muhammad appellant was holding a Kapa in his hand. Therefore, their statements are fully substantiated by the medical evidence on the record, the perusal of which shows that Nazir Ahmad deceased received one single injury on the front of his neck which cut the trachea and the left carotid artery above the level of thyroid cartiledge whereas Faiz Ahmad deceased suffered as many as nine incised wounds out of which injury No. 1 was of fatal kind. The criticism by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the manner of the injuries inflicted by the appellants as stated by the witnesses, is not of much significance. It is understandable that the witnesses who rushed to the place of occurrence would not be very accurate in their narration keeping in view the haste with which they had reached the venue of crime and the confusion caused by the assailants by launching assault at one time on two different deceased. It was but natural for them to be shocked and bewildered and thus one cannot expect from them to relate the occurrence with accuracy which could not be expected of them in such circumstances. If certain discrepancies had occurred in their account while giving the details of this incident, it does not reflect on their veracity and cannot destroy their entire evidence. We also cannot lose sight of this fact that murders were committed at the dark hours of night and what these witnesses saw was only under the light of the lantern and if they missed the details and provided the same with the assistance of their imagination, such like attitude would be quite natural and in no way would cause damage to their integrity. May be they might not have witnessed the entire incident from its inception as they had to cover some distance before they came within plausible distance to witness this tragedy enacted. Learned trial Court has weighed all the pros and cons of the eye‑witness account in paragraphs Nos. 12 and 13 of its judgment and we find that the conclusion arrived at by it is in consonance with the judicial principles for the assessment of such evidence.

14. Regarding the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the conduct of the appellants was not compatible with the motive so alleged against them, it is sufficient to say that it is difficult to predict the way in which a person spay act when he is bent upon to destroy human life. Once a killer sets himself to destroy his target, he may go to any extent to achieve his end. 'there are cases in which he may feel satisfied by inflicting a blow or two but it cannot be said that he would not proceed to continue inflicting more injuries if he desire to do so, insensed with his lust to satiate his urge for killing. Many a times it has been seen that a victim has been cut into pieces by his assailants in a more brutal manner despite the fact that it was known to the killer that the victim was no more in a position to offer any resistance to his onslaughts. Therefore, we do not feel persuaded with the "argument that cruel and brutal killing is only generated either to avenge some long standing enmity or to vindicate some family honour. If the appellants have acted the way as stated by the P. Ws. and found by the doctor, it would not be difficult to analyse such phenomenon as cases are not wanting where sots have destroyed their parents and brothers have taken life of their real brother over the ground of land. In the instant case Khushi Muhammad appellant would have no compassion, where the life of a utrine brother was involved, who had frustrated the designs of his old father who for having soft corner for Mst. Imam Bibi, his latest wife, wanted to give his entire property to her son. In view of this reasoning, we do not find any force in this contention put forth by the defence and decline to accept it.

15. We have no hesitation to reject the defence version which was brought on the record in the form of suggestions to the witnesses during cross‑examination that in fact Faiz Ahmad deceased alongwith his son was done to death by one Muhammad Din, an ex‑husband of Mst. Hamidan, present wife of Faiz Ahmad deceased, as nothing but fantasy. Taking into consideration this proposition, we find that Mst. Hamidan was divorced by Muhammad Din 5/6 years prior to this occurrence and since that period was living with Faiz Ahmad as his wife. The defence has led no evidence to show that during this period, the said Muhammad Din made any serious attempt to take this lady back or to vindicate his honour by committing some overt act against the deceased, although it is in evidence that he was all along living in the same village with Faiz Ahmad. We also fail to find any other suggestion on the record of this case to tell us that Faiz Ahmad deceased had either committed murder of some body else or had played with the honour of certain family, who would embark on this mission to avenge such wrongs so committed by the deceased. We are of the considered opinion that this version of the defence is nothing but an afterthought which hardly deserves any notice by a rational mind.

16. The recovery of toka P.W. at the instance of Allah Ditta appellant and removal of blood‑stained chaddar P. 13 from his person, hatchet P. 9 and blood‑stained loin‑cloth P. 12 of Muhammad Sadiq appellant and Kapa P, 8 and chaddar from Fateh Muhammad appellant, were attested by Muhammad Khan P. W. 7, Mutalli P. W. 8 and Ghulam Muhammad S. I. P. W.

14. All these articles were found stained with blood and according to the report Exh. PAA of the Serologist the blood was found to be from human origin. It has been said about Muhammad Khan P. W. 7 that he was not an independent witness because be has admitted in his cross examina tion that he appeared as a witness against Allah Ditta appellant in a case under section 325, P. P. C. and Allah Ditta also figured as a witness against him in some other matter of criminal nature. But there is nothing against Mutalli P. W. 8 and Ghulam Muhammad S. I. P. W. 14, who have no motive to falsely involve any of the appellants. Therefore, we are convinced that evidence of recovery fully connects Muhammad Sadiq, Fateh Muhammad and Allah Ditta appellants with the commission of this crime. They have been attributed definite parts by the P. Ws and at the time of arrest, their chaddars were found stained with human blood. The weapons so assigned to theca were recovered at their instance from the places which were within their exclusive knowledge. Khushi Muhammad appellant although empty‑handed was the person who had the real motive to kill the deceased and had summoned the other three appel lants to assist him in his nefarious designs. He also played active role by holding the victims and gave full assistance to his compatriots in killing as well as burning the bodies of the deceased, the unfortunate father and son. We are satisfied by going through the entire evidence of this case that the learned trial Court has rightly relied on ocular testimony and circum stantial evidence against the appellants produced by the prosecution. The conviction made by the trial Court under section 302/34 and 201/34, P. P. C. is fully justified, as the prosecution has proved its ease against all the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt. However, for the reason given in the, earlier part of our judgment, we are convinced that motive against the appellants stands fully proved and the following observation of the learned trial Court in paragraph No. 17 of its judgment, does not get support from the evidence on the record: "On account of the absence of evidence of motive and nature of the evidence and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the accused are not liable to capital punishment under section 302, P. P. C

17. The result is that we dismiss both the anneals filed by Muhammad Sadiq and Allah Ditta, Khushi Muhammad and Fateh Muhammad appel lants as being without any force and while upholding their conviction under section 302/34 and maintaining their sentences under section 201/34, P. P. C. as arrived at by the learned trial Court, we sentence them to death the normal penalty provided under the section for which they have been convicted, for the reason that he `who sheweths no mercy, deserves no mercy'. The principle of expectancy of life, which was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court some time back as a valid ground in abstaining to visit the accused with extreme penalty after a lapse of considerable period, no more holds the field, in view of the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court itself. Reliance is placed on Asadullah v. Muhammad Ali (P L D 1971 S C 541).

19. For the foregoing reasons Criminal Revision No. 466 of 1973, for the enhancement of sentence of the appellants, is hereby accepted. Order accordingly.