1990 P Cr (PLP)

Similarly, on the same day at about 11‑30 a.m. the very doctor also conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shafqatullah deceased and found the following on superficial examination:‑‑ (1) A stab wound with clear margin at the fourth intercostal space 4" right to the median line. It is 6" deep. (2) A stab wound at the 11th intercostal space 4" deep on the left side, 4" left to the median line. On dissection, the doctor found the thorax walls on the left at the 11th intercastal space and on the right at the 4th intercostal space of the deceased perforated. Pleurae was damaged both on the right and left sides. Right lung and left lung perforated. Blood vessels of right and left lung were damaged. According to the doctor the deceased died of stab wounds which damaged both lungs and blood vessels of the deceased.

4. Mian Javed Yunis, S.H.O. P.W.12, on his visit to the spot prepared the site plan Exh.P.B. at the instance and pointation of the P.Ws. He also recovered blood‑stained pebbles and earth from the respective places of the two deceased and sealed the same into parcel vide memo. Exh.P.C./2 in presence of the marginal witnesses. The Investigating Officer also recovered one sheath (P.2) vide memo. Exh.P.C./1. Similarly, vide recovery memo. Exh.P.C./3 the Investigating Officer took into possession the blood‑stained clothes of both the deceased. One sheet (P.9) and mufler (P.10) belonging to the deceased were also taken into possession by the S.H.O. vide memo. Exh.P.C./4 from the under construction house. The accused‑respondent also led the Investigating Officer to his house where he produced to the Investigating Officer his torn shirt, tea‑stained Shalwar, and the I.O took into possession these articles vide recovery memo. Exh.P.C./5. The I.O on 13‑12‑1986, produced the accused‑respondent before Zafar Iqbal, M.1.C., Banda Daud Shah for confession and the concessional statement is Exh.P.W.10/1. The blood‑stained articles including the dagger were also sent to the laboratory for analysis and positive opinion of the Expert in this regard is Exh.P.K.

5. The accused‑respondent, however, when sent to the trial Court to stand his trial on the charge of double murder, he pleaded innocence, whereafter the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses against him to prove its case against the accused‑respondent.

6. The learned trial Judge vide his impugned judgment dated 5‑7‑1988 found the accused‑respondent guilty of the charge and accordingly convicted him to the sentences already mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. Feeling dissatisfied, the complainant party has filed the instant revision petition for the enhancement of the sentences of the accused‑respondent.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, accused respondent and the O.S.D. for the State and have gone very carefully through the record.

8. In this case admittedly the first part of the occurrence took place in the under construction house of one Manzurullah during the day of occurrence where the accused‑respondent was employed as a labourer. The prosecution has produced Qadirullah, P.W.8, Zahurullah son of the said Manzurullah, P.W.9, and one Amin Badshah, P.W.6, to prove both the parts of the incident i.e. first quarrel between the accused‑respondent and the two deceased in the under construction house of Manzurullah and the fatal occurrence at some distance from the house of the two deceased in which both the deceased lost their lives.

9. It has been established on record that Oadirullah, P.W.8 used to supervise the construction work of the house of Manzurullah, who was away from the village in connection with his service and both are closely related. Zahurullah P.W.9 is the son of the said Manzurullah while Amin Badshah, P.W.6, was employed as a mason in the under construction house of Manzurullah. All of them have stated with one voice that on the day of occurrence at about 8‑30 a.m. both the deceased Fayyazullah, Shafqatullah, who were related to Manzurllah, the owner of the house under construction, brought tea for the labourers and while putting the tea into cups some tea fell on the clothes of the accused‑respondent over which he got annoyed and after exchanging hot words grappled with the two deceased. The persons present there intervened and both the deceased we rc taken to their house by Oadirullah. P.W.8 followed by Zahurullah. P.W.9. and the accused‑respondent was also relieved of his job by giving him an undertaking that wages for the whole day would be paid to him. It is in the evidence of Qadirullah and Zahurullah, P.Ws., that they both consoled the deceased in their house and after spending about one or quarter past one hour they again started for the under construction house when at some distance from the house of the deceased the accused‑respondent emerged from the opposite direction who was armed with a dagger and at once he gave a blow to Fayyazullah, deceased, who was going ahead of them. With this blow Fayyazullah was badly injured and he rushed back towards his house. Thereafter, the accused gave two blows to deceased Shafqatullah who in spite of receipt of grievous injuries chased the accused respnndent to some distance but fell down near the Hujra of one Faqir Khan. Both the witnesses i.e. Qadirullah and Zahurullah when reached the house of the dcccased they found Fayyazullah deceased lying dead in the Deuri of the house and on return towards the scene of occurrence they also found Shafqatullah, deceased, lying dead near the Hujra of Faqir Khan. The medical evidence proves that the accused‑respondent gave one dagger blow to deceased Fayyazullah and two dagger blows to Shafqatullah with such a force that vital organs of both the deceased were badly damaged and resulted in the death of both the deceased.

10. Besides this, the prosecution has examined one Amin Badshah, who was working as a mason in the under construction house who is a totally disinterested witness and who has testified the version regarding the first incident as furnished by the two eye‑witnesses Qadirullah. P.W.8, and Zahurullah, P.W.9. Although these two witnesses are related to the deceased but the defence has not been able to prove any animosity on their part to falsely charge the accused. Had they any intention, they could have easily roped in other family members of the accused for murder of both the deceased, which is not the case here. This shows that both the eye‑witnesses have given straightforward and truthful account of the occurrence.

11. The case of the prosecution further gets support from the statements of Amanullah, P.W.11, and Lai Khan, P.W.4, regarding the arrest of the accused alongwith blood‑stained dagger. A look at the statement of Amanullah shows that soon after the occurrence he started search of the accused and found him in the limits of mountain of Bargai alongwith the weapon of offence i.e. the blood stained dagger. Lal Khan, P.W., is admittedly a close relation of the accused respondent i.e. father‑in‑law of the sister of the accused‑respondent but he has also given a straightforward statement corroborating the evidence of Amanullah, P.W.8 regarding the arrest of the accused.

12. S.H.O. Mian Javed Younis P.W.12, stated at the trial that after registration of the case vide F.I.R. Exh.P.A., he proceeded to the spot and on his way he met Amanullah, P.W.I1, alongwith the accused‑respondent in his custody and he accordingly arrested him and took into possession the dagger vide memo. Exh.P.C., in presence of Subedar Karim Gul, P.W.3, and Subedar Lal Jan, the abandoned P.W. The S.H.O. then prepared the site plan, Exh.P.B., and took into possession blood‑stained pebbles and earth from the places where the two deceased were allegedly injured and sealed the same into parcel vide memo. Exh.P.C./2. Vide memo. Exh.P.C./1 the Investigating Officer also recovered one sheath, P.2, and in presence of the marginal witnesses he sealed the blood‑stained clothes of the deceased vide memo. Exh.P.C./3. One sheet, P.9, and mufler, P.I.O belonging to the deceased were also taken into possession by the S.H.O. vide memo. Exh.P.C./4 from the under construction house where the deceased and accused‑respondent had quarrelled. It is also on record that the accused‑ respondent led the police to his house and there he produced to the Investigating Officer his torn shirt, tea‑stained Shalwar which were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo. EXh.P.C./5. All the blood‑stained articles alongwith the clothes of both the deceased were sent to the Chemical Examiner for report which is in positive that all these articles were stained with blood of human origin as appeared on the clothes of the deceased.

13. Lastly, we find that the accused‑respondent made a confessional statement after 5 days of the occurrence but the defence has not been able to prove on record that this confession was the result of undue torture by the police.

14. From what has been discussed above, we are of the firm view that this is a case in which the accused‑respondent stabbed to death both the deceased one by one with dagger blows after about one or quarter past one hour after the first quarrel between them which clearly shows his intention to do away with both the deceased. In such like situation the accused‑respondent deserves the capital punishment provided under the law. The learned Sessions Judge was legally wrong in not awarding him the sentence of death. We would, therefore, accept this revision petition, enhance the sentence of life imprisonment to death (two counts) with a fine of Rs.10,000 on each count with the direction that the accused respondent shall be hanged by neck till he be dead. In case of default in payment of tine the accused‑respondent shall suffer one year's S.I. on each count. We also order that the accused‑respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000 as compensation payable to the heirs of both the deceased under section 541‑A, Cr.P.C. and in case of default in payment of compensation, the accused‑respondent shall suffer S.I. for six months under each count. N.H.Q./1049/P Revision petition accepted.