P L D 2002 Supreme Court 567 (PLP)

4. The detail of occurrence is furnished by complainant Allah Wasaya son 'of Khan Muhammad. He alongwith Imam Bakhsh son of Qadir Bakhsh on 7‑10‑1993 at evening time had come to the house of his brother Allah Ditta in Basti Rehmania Colony, Jalalpur Pirwala. As, much time was spent in having chat at his brother's house and as it had become late, both decided to stay for the night. Allah Wasaya and Imam Bakhsh put their cots in the veranda while Allah Ditta slept in the courtyard. Mst.Bakhto Mai wife of Allah Ditta, Mst.Jewan Mai the mother of Allah Ditto, N1st.Nazeer Mai wife of Riaz Hussain, Mst. Nasreen Mai daughter of Allah Ditta and Fayyaz Hussain aged six years son of Allah Ditta were also asleep on their cots in the veranda, when, at about 02‑00 hours Allah Ditta wailed in alarm. Allah Wasaya and Imam Bakhsh got up and saw in the light of bulbs that Ghazanfar Abbas petitioner, a neighbour armed with a pistol was standing near Allah Ditto. Within the view of the two witnesses, Ghazanafar Abbas alias Taindu fired two shots at Allah Ditta which hit him on the right shoulder and at the left hip. With the report of the fire shots all the inmate of the house woke up and stood aside out of fear. Thema ter, the petitioner opened fire at Mst.Jewan Mai, Mst.Nazeer Mai, Mst.Nasreen Mai and Fayyaz Hussain. They all fell injured and the petitioner alongwith fire‑arm decamped from the spot by scaling over the wall. The people of Mohallah were also attracted to the hue and cry and with their help ail the injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Jalapur Pirwala. Allah Ditto succumbed to his injuries at the hospital while Mst.Jewan Mai and Mst.Nazeer Mai died the next day. The report was lodged at 05‑30 hours the same night which is incorrectly mentioned somewhere as 5‑30 p.m.

5. Motive for the occurrence is alleged to the effect that one Mst.Surriya alias Guddi, the sister of Ghazanfar Abbas had been abducted two months prior to the occurrence and was rescued by the people of Eidhi Walfare Trust at Karachi. Therefrom, she was retrieved by the parents on telephonic message. Ijaz Hussain Shah the father of the abductee anu Ghazanfar Abbas the brother of the abductee had suspected that Manzoor the son of Allah Ditta had abducted Mst.Surriya. They had been threatening tl;e family of Allah Ditta of revenge which eventually was translated into reality. It was alleged in the.F.I.R. that Ijaz Hussain Shah, in order to avenge the abduction of his daughter had also shifted his bag and baggage from the neighbourhood and it was under the abetment of Ijaz Hussain Shah that Ghazanfar Abbas committed the offences. Ijaz Hussain Shah who was involved under section 109, P.P.C. stands proceeded against under section 512, Cr.P.C. ,

6. Apart from numerous other factors, the prosecution placed its main reliance on the ocular testimony of as many as three witnesses, namely, Mst. Nasreen Mai (P.W.2), Allah Wasaya complainant (P.W.30 and Imam Bakhsh (P.W.4) who have categorically supported the first and prompt version given in the F.I.R. Although it had another witness in store, namely Fayyaz Hussain minor who war injured in the occurrence, yet being a minor he was abandoned as unnecessary and rightly so because under similar conditions three witnesses of eye account had already been examined by the prosecution who could least be shattered by the defence in cross.

7. The complainant family had five casualties; one dead and four seriously injured at such an odd hour of the night. They had to arrange for conveyance and other necessary jobs for the errand. They first took the injured to the hospital where they were given necessary medical aid and thereafter lodged the report at OS‑30 hours. In the circumstances, the F.I.R. was lodged at the earliest possible. This leaves no room for concoction and deliberation particularly when there was none else to be deliberated with.

8. The convict/petitioner was arrested six days after the occurrence on 14‑10‑1993. This shows his abscondence as well though for a short time. At the time of his arrest a .30 bore pistol was recovered from body search. It matched with the empties recovered from the spot. This is another strong circumstance which the petitioner cannot wriggle out from.

9. The version of the, eye‑witnesses is supported by the post‑mortem as well as the medico‑legal reports where the injuries almost coincide with the narration given in the ocular account. The number of injuries almost C correspond to the number of empties recovered from the spot in addition to an empty magazine of the pistol. Obviously, as many as 11 to .12 rounds could not be loaded in one magazine, and thus to complete his job, the assailant after emptying one magazine reloaded the pistol with another one. It was a matter of extreme hurry and thus the assailant had no time to keep the empty magazine. Naturally, in the heat of the moment, he had to throw away.

10. Half‑heartedly the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Allah Wasaya complainant and Imam Bakhsh P.W. not being the residents of the house were not the natural witnesses and hence their testimony should be taken out of consideration. We could not be persuaded to accept the argument because for a brother alongwith his friend or relative, it is not something unusual to pay a visit to the house of his real brother and, in the circumstances, to stay there for night. We believe that the witnesses are natural witnesses. The learned counsel had no answer when we posed a question as to how he would discard the ocular testimony of Mst.Nasreen Mai who was seriously injured in the occurrence and who furnished the most natural eye. account. Rather, her statement in Court was snore natural and worthy of credence when she said that she woke up only after the first shot which the assailant had fired at Allah Ditta deceased. We have no strong reason to discard the statements of Allah Wasaya and Imam Bakhsh and not the slightest of reason to discard the ocular testimony of Mst.Nasreen Mai. The assailant being known to the family as neighbor was not a stranger for them and it was not difficult to identify him in the light of bulb and from IE such a close distance.

11. It is a case of single charge. Though the father of the petitioner is also charged but he is for abetment alone and never asserted to be present on the spot. Such single charge is a rare phenomenon because in a. single charge the substitution cannot be afforded, particularly when to substantiate the charge there are as many as three eye‑witnesses examined in Court. The petitioner had failed to produce any defence.

12. With regard to the motive in question it was alleged with reference to questions Nos.3 and 4 of the statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C., that the accused having denied, had no motive to kill. This renders all the more strength to the case of the prosecution that if the convict had no motive in his mind, there was no other enmity between the parties prior to the occurrence, thus the complainant party cannot be charged of having any motive to falsely implicate. Obviously there was motive to commit the IF offence and which is why the convict is singularly charged.

13. All that has been said above in connection with appreciation of evidence was for the only reason that the two Courts below had rightly G appreciated the eye‑witnesses as well as the circumstantial evidence on record. It did not need to be discussed because the learned counsel candidly conceded that he would not touch the merit of the case and would confine himself only to the quantum of sentence. His only submission was restricted to such issue. He reiterated that due to the past abduction of his sister, the petitioner had acted to redeem the honour of, family, in what he termed as "Ghairat. "

14. Regardless of whether honour killing, as such, is justifiable or not, we would refer only to the circumstances of the present case and would determine, as to, whether, the plea of honour killing is at all genuine. It has come on record that the convict and his father had suspected Manzoor son of Allah Ditta of having had abducted Mst. Surriya, who was subsequently retrieved from Karachi. If so, the direct motive should have been at the most and if at all, available against Manzoor. It is not justified that a person in the name of honour should come out to exterminate the whole family as the convict has almost done in the instant case. He not only killed Allah Ditta who has nothing to do with the abduction of Mst.Surriya but also killed Mst.Jewan Mai and Mst.Nazeer Mai. He went on further to kill Mst.Nasreen H Mai and Fayyaz Hussain as well but it was only their fortune that they survived. Such a desperate act and a blatant violation of law can in no circumstance be justified on the plea of unbridled sense of honour. We have no hesitation in holding, in the circumstances, that there exists no mitigating circumstance at all. In the instant case, the two Courts below have not only imposed a proper sentence but it was their duty to do so. All the convictions and sentences recorded and imposed against. the petitioner including the death sentence on three counts are upheld, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./G‑103/S Leave refused.