2000 PLP 1682 (SCMR)

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.

This petition is directed against t e judgment, dated 17-3-1999 passed by Division Bench of the Lahore high Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Criminal Appeal No.237-T of 1998.

2. The petitioner-Muh;rmmad Ajmal son of Fazal Dad, Gujjar by caste, resident of Village Babrki, Police Station Hassan Abdaal faced trial for the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. on the allegation of committing the murder of Manzoor Hussain, Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Munir through an act of terrorism in the Court-room of Senior Civil Judge, Attock, or 14-7-1997, before the Special Court, Rawalpindi Division and .Islamabac Capital Territory established under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 The petitioner having been found guilty of the charge was convicted and sentenced as under:-- (a) Sentence of death under section 302(b), P.P.C. on three counts for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad Munir and Manzoor Hussain deceased with a fine of Rs.50,000 on each count and in default of the payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three years on each count. The fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr. P. C. (b) Sentence of death under section 7(1) of the Anti-Terrorim Act, 1997. (c) Sentence of R.I. for ten years under section 324, P.P.C. for an attempt to commit Qatl-e-Amd of Umar Draz, Reader of Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, with a fine of Rs.25,000 and in default of the payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for one year. The fine was ordered to be paid to Umar Draz injured under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner assailed the judgment by way of Criminal Appeal No.237-T of 1998 before Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi which was dismissed, hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The case of prosecution as narrated in the F.I.R. was that on 14-7-1997, Zahoor Ahmad complainant alongwith his brother namely, Manzoor Ahmad, Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad Maqsood and Mahboob Elahi, were present in the Court of Mr. Khalil Ahmad Anwar, Senior Civil Judge with the powers of Magistrate Section 30, Attock waiting for the call of the case registered against them under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. through F.I.R. No.68, dated 15-3-1996 at Police Station Hassan Abdaal, on the report lodged by Liaqat Ali, real brother of Muhammad Ajmal petitioner, fixed for hearing for the said date. Liaquat Ali complainant alongwith his brother Muhammad Ajmal was also present in Court in connection with the said case. At 9-00 a.m. on call of the case Muhammad Ajmal petitioner armed with ,.30 bore pistol while entering into the Court-room suddenly started firing indiscriminately, and as a result whereof, . Manzoor Hussain, Abdul Ghafoor, the brother of the complainant, as well as Muhammad Munir, Naib Qasid of the Court, sustained injuries on different parts of their bodies including head, abdomen and chest, whereas Umar Draz, Reader of the Court, sustained a fire-arm injury on his leg. Abdul Ghafoor, brother of the complainant, succumbed to the injuries at the spot whereas Manzoor and Muhammad Munir expired in the Civil Hospital, Attock, on the same day. Umar Draz was treated in the said hospital. The present petitioner Muhammad Ajmal was apprehended with pistol in the Court-room. The motive behind the occurrence as stated by the complainant was the litigation between the parties.

4. After registration of the case, Abdul Rauf, S.-I. inspected the scene of offence and recovered five crime empties with lead bullets from inside the Court-room and sealed the same. He also took into possession .30 bore pistol used by the petitioner through a separate memo. The crime empties, lead bullets and pistol were handed over to Moharrir for onward transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

5. Initially, the Challan was submitted to the Court of Sessions Judge, Attock, but later on with the addition of section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) it was sent to the Special Court constituted thereunder.

6. The trial Court framed the charge under sections 302, 324, P.P.C. read with section 7 of the Act. At trial, trial Court examined Abdul Ghafoor, S.-I. (P.W.1), Muhammad Fayyaz (P.W.2), Dr. Zubair (P.W.3), Dr. Tanvir Ahmad (P.W.4), Dr. Muhammad Ali Bokhari (P.W.5), Sadaqat Ali, Constable (P.W.6) and Hazoor Muhammad, Constable (P.W.7), Muhammad Hanif, Draftsman (P.W.8), Zahoor Ahmad (P.W.9), Muhammad Fayyaz (P.W.10) and Umar Draz (P.W.11).

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly stressed that the immediate cause of occurrence in this case is shrouded in mystery which is a sufficient extenuating circumstance to commute the sentence of death of the petitioner to imprisonment for life. He next argued that the criminal litigation was pending in-between Liaquat Ali, real brother of the petitioner and complainant party for the last more than one year but no incident of any sort has taken place during the intervening period despite the fact that the parties resided in same village and used to attend the Court as usual. Since immediate cause for the occurrence being not known, the motive set up by the prosecution is not proved to be the actual cause of the incident.

8. On the face of it this seems to be an act of terrorism fully falling within the ambit of section 6 of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner has behaved in an inhuman manner who while entering inside the Court-room made indiscriminate firing at the complainant party and the personnel of the Court staff and killed complainant's brother namely, Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Munir Naib Qasid and severely injured Reader of the Court namely, Umar Draz, thus created a sense of fear and insecurity among the people. All the witnesses examined at trial have fully supported the case of prosecution against the petitioner on the score that he fired indiscriminately in the Court-room on the abovementioned persons and that he was apprehended there and then alongwith his .30 bore pistol the crime weapon. Not only this but 5 crime empties with lead bullets were recovered from the Court-room which were sealed and sent for expert opinion alongwith crime weapon and the same were opined to have been fired from the said weapon.

9. On the other hand petitioner has admitted the incident partly by stating in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. that there existed a criminal litigation between him and Liaquat Ali, the brother of complainant and that on the day of incident their case based on F.I.R. No.68 was fixed before the Court of Senior Civil Judge with the powers of Magistrate A Section 30, Attock. He did not examine himself on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. This partial admission of the petitioner that he was present in the Court on the day of incident, goes to show his complicity in the commission of offence. The petition -is also barred by 29 days for which neither any plausible explanation has been furnished nor any application for condonation of delay is filed.

10. Above all the learned counsel has not been able to point out any infirmity or legal flaw in the judgment of the High Court calling for! interference by this Court. There seems to be no force in the petition which is dismissed and leave prayed for is refused. M.B.A./M-85/S Petition dismissed.