2005 PLP 1585 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.

F.I.R. No.223 dated 23-9-1996 of Police Station Saddar Attock recorded at about 3-30 p.m. at the instance of Zahoor Khan complainant accused Ali Khan petitioner of having murdered the complainant's father, namely, Ghulam Elahi and his two cousins, namely, Ghulam Haider and Sahib Khan. After this F.I.R. had been recorded, one Noor Muhammad, another cousin of Zahoor Khan complainant also reached the said police station and reported that the same Ali Khan petitioner had murdered his mother Mst. Banni Begum with respect to which murder another F.I.R. bearing No.224 was registered at the said police station on the same day at about . 4-30 p.m.

2. Since the said two occurrences were separate and independent,` therefore, two separate challans were submitted in Court which resulted in two separate trials.

3. With respect to the occurrence wherein Ghulam Elahi, Sahib Khan and Ghulam Haider had been murdered, Ali Khan petitioner was found guilty of the charge through a judgment of a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Attock dated 28-3-1998; was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. on three counts and was directed to suffer death on each count with a further direction to him to pay Rs.1,00,000, on each count, as compensation.

4. On the same day, the same learned Additional Sessions Judge found Ali Khan petitioner guilty also of the Qatl-e-Amd of Mst. Banni Begum; convicted him under section 302(b), P.P.C. and punished him with death again with a direction to him to pay Rs.1,00,000 as compensation.

5. The said Ali Khan convict has approached this Court through Jail Petition No.329 of 2003 impugning the conviction and the punishment recorded against him with respect to the murders of Ghulam Elahi, Ghulam Haider and Sahib Khan pursuant to the occurrence reported through F.I.R. No.223 dated 23-9-1996 of Police Station Saddar Attock. He has also filed Jail Petition No.328 of 2003 questioning the conviction and punishment recorded against him with respect to the murder of Mst. Banni Begum which was subject-matter of F.I.R. No.224 dated 23-9-1996 of the same police station.

6. Although technically both the occurrences were different transactions which had led to separate trials and independent appeals in the High Court which culminated in the above-noticed separate judgments but we propose to dispose of both the above mentioned jail petitions through this single, order because there is a lot common between the said two cases.

7. Jail Petition No.329 of 2003, as has been mentioned above, emanates from F.I.R. No.223 of 1996 of Police Station Saddar Attock which related to an occurrence in which three persons, namely, Ghulam Elahi, Ghulam Haider and Sahib Khan had been murdered.

8. The occurrence had taken place in broad-daylight i.e. at 1-30 p.m. at a place where the land belonging to Ali Khan convict and the land belonging to the complainant party joined each other. The eye-witness account in this trial had been offered by Zahoor Khan complainant (P.W:13) who was a son of Ghulam Elahi deceased and a cousin of the other two deceased persons and by Ghulam Ali (P.W. 14) who was a brother of Ghulam Haider deceased of this case. Since, as has been mentioned above, the occurrence had taken place in broad-daylight, therefore, there was no question of the said occurrence having gone un witnessed or the culprit having escaped unidentified. The parties were closely related to each other and the identification of the assailant could have posed no problem for the eye-witnesses. The complainant party had allegedly gone to their land to plough the same and in the circumstances the three deceased persons being accompanied by their near ones was not the kind of explanation of their presence at the place of occurrence which could be said to be unreasonable or un-believable. The claim of the convict that these three persons had been killed by some proclaimed offenders was, in the circumstances, a claim which had been rightly rejected by the two learned Courts i.e. the learned trial Court and the honourable Appellate Court. The said learned Courts were of the view that the eye-witnesses did not have the kind of enmity or motive which could have prompted them to maliciously implicate the petitioner for the triple murder and this was a finding not open to any serious exception. It had also been noticed that ten crime-empties had been found at the spot which had been found to have been fired from the rifle recovered from the petitioner.

9. Having heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and having examined the record, we are of the view that the conclusions reached by the two learned Courts did not admit of any interference nor did the quantum of punishment warrant interference by this Court.

10. In this view of the matter, Jail Petition No.329 of 2003 is dismissed and leave refused.

11. This brings us to Jail Petition No.328 of 2003 filed by the same convict against his conviction and punishment on account of the murder of Mst. Banni Begum.

12. In this case the murder of Mst. Banni Begum deceased had been committed shortly after the murder of Ghulam Elahi, Ghulam Haider and Sahib Khan deceased of the above mentioned earlier case and had been commenced in the house of Mst. Banni Begum deceased where the convict-petitioner had gone after killing the above mentioned three deceased persons. Noor Muhammad complainant (P.W.10) is a son of Mst. Banni Begum deceased who lived with his mother and he was thus a natural witness of whatever had been described by him. His brother Ahmed Khan who was also a son of Mst. Banni Begum deceased had divorced a daughter of Ali Khan petitioner, namely, Mst. Fareeda Akhtar which was alleged as the motive prompting the petitioner to kill Mst. Banni Begum.

13. One crime-empty had been found at the spot which had been found to have been fired from the rifle recovered from the petitioner. This piece of evidence along with the evidence of above mentioned motive and the eye-witness account furnished by Noor Muhammad complainant had been found reliable by the two learned Courts i.e. the learned trial Court and the Honourable High Court. We have also once again examined the record in the light of the submissions made before us and find that the conclusions reached by the said two learned Courts were unexceptionable.

14. Therefore, Jail Petition No.328 of 2003 is also dismissed and leave refused. N.H.Q./A-160/S Leave to appeal. refused.