2006 PLP 204 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.

This appeal, through leave of this Court, is directed against a consolidated judgment dated 20-2-2001 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Appeal N0.762 of 1995 and Murder Reference No.305 of 1995 whereby the conviction and sentences recorded against the two appellants, namely, Nasir Mehmood and his father Muhammad Ramzan under sections 302(b)/34, 337-A(ii)/34, 337-D and 337-L(ii)/34 were maintained and whereby the sentences of death awarded to Nasir Mehmood appellant on two counts, had been confirmed.

2. It was in order to take back his estranged wife, namely, Mst. Shafqat Bibi deceased that Nasir Mehmood appellant came to the house of his in-laws after arming himself with a carbine and when he was also allegedly accompanied by his brother Ehsan P.O. who was also armed with a carbine and when his father Muhammad Ramzan appellant who was armed with a Sota was also with him. The occurrence that followed witnessed the killing of Mst. Shafqat Bibi deceased and of her maternal-uncle, namely, Muhammad Afzal. In the process the father of Mst. Shafqat deceased, namely. Attaullah complainant; a sigter of Mst. Shafqat deceased namely, Mst. Naheed Akhtar (P. W.21); her mother Mst. Musarrat l3egum (P.W.22) and a Khala of Mst. Shafqat Bibi deceased, namely, Mst. Sarwar Bibi (P.W.20) had received injuries on their persons. As a result of the trial which ensued, Nasir Mehmood appellant was convicted under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. and punished with death on two counts. His father Muhammad Ramzan appellant was, however, directed to suffer sentences of life imprisonment on the said charge. As has been mentioned above, both of them were further convicted and punished under sections 337-A(ii)/34, 337-L(ii)/34 and 337-D/34, P.P.C. and directed inter alia, to suffer different terms of imprisonment. The appeal filed by the said convicts was dismissed through the above-noticed judgment of the Lahore High Court which led the said two convicts to this Court through Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.181/L of 2001.

3. Leave had been allowed in the present case to consider whether Nasir Mehmood appellant could be punished with Qisas for the Qtal-i-Amd of Mst. Shafqat Bibi deceased in view of the provisions of A section 306, P.P.C. as the said deceased had left behind two daughters out of her wedlock with Nasir Mehmood appellant which daughters were the Wali of Mst. Shafqat Bibi deceased and direct descendants of the offender, namely, Nasir Mehmood appellant.

4. We have examined the judgment of the learned trial Court delivered in the present case. Paragraph 45 of the said judgment, dated 2-11-1995 reveals that Nasir Mehmood appellant had not been punished with death by way of Qisas under section 302(a) of the P.P.C. but had been directed to suffer death by way of Tazir under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. The provisions of section 306, P.P.C. provide on that Qisas shall not be enforced on an offender whose descendants were Wali of the deceased person. As has been noticed above Nasir Mehmood appellant had not been punished by way of Qisas, therefore, the question, to resolve which, the leave had been granted did not require determination in this case. In this view of the matter, other issues which had been c formulated through the leave granting order also lose significance in the present case. In any case, no such situation arose vis-a-vis the murder of Afzal deceased for which murder also, Nasir appellant stood punished with death.

5. By way of abundant caution we have also examined the appellants' case on merit. The prosecution had, inter alia, offered testimony of four injured witnesses of the occurrence to prove its case. All these four injured P.Ws. were not only injured witnesses of the occurrence in question but they were also natural witnesses of the said occurrence because they were the residents of the place where the said crime had been committed. There had been no background of any D previous enmity which could have led them to maliciously involve the appellants in the present occurrence. The defence plea taken by the Nasir Mehmood appellant had been dealt with and considered by the two learned Courts i.e. the learned trial Judge and the Honourable High Court and had been discarded for sound reasons. No exception could, therefore, be taken to the concurrent findings of guilt recorded against the two appellants.

6. We have also given some thought to the quantum of punishment awarded to the two appellants. Nasir Mehmood appellant had acted in a callous, ruthless and brutal manner in his efforts to take back his estranged wife. He was responsible for the death of two innocent persons and for causing injuries to the four other innocent victims. He does not deserve any sympathy or leniency. Therefore, the decision of the two Courts in awarding the normal penalty of death to him was also not open to any exception.

7. In this view of the matter this Criminal Appeal bearing No.50 of 2002, is dismissed. N.H.Q./N-71/SC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.