2000 PLP 2638 (YLR)

10. On the appellant's side Nazir appellant and Amir accused are real brothers inter se ‑‑‑Gulzar and Siddique accused of the present case are their cousins and Zulfiqar accused of the present case is maternal uncle of the other four accused persons including Nazir appellant.

11. The complainant party and, the appellant party of the present case are also related to each other inasmuch as Gulzar and Siddique accused are MAMOONZAD of Dosa deceased and Ata Muhammad complainant while Zultiqar is a PHOOPHI ZAD of the said complainant and the said deceased.

12. It may also be added here that it was declared by both the eye‑witnc,ses while under cross‑examination that no enmity existed between Nazir appellant and the two deceased persons nor was there any real animosity between the two eye?witnesses of the present case and Nazir appellant.

13. The occurrence in question had taken place in broad daylight inside the Police Station of immediately outside thereof where some tea stalls etc. also existed. Therefore, whether the occurrence had taken place within the four‑walls of Police Station Saddar. Chiniot or whether it had taken place at the gate of the said police station there was no question of the occurrence having (,one un?witnessed or the culprit having escaped un‑identified. As has been noticed above SHAHOO deceased of the earlier case was a. cousin of Ata Muhammad complainant of the' present case and Dosa deceased of the present. case who‑ was one of the suspects of SHAHOO's murder case was a brother of the said Ata Muhammad complainant. The other eye‑witness of the present case, namely, Sardara P.W.3 'was also a cousin of abovementioned Dosa deceased of the present case and his brother Muhammad was the complainant of SHAHOO's murder case. It is also on record that the investigation of SHAHOO's murder case was in progress during the days of the present occurrence. Therefore, the claim of the two eye‑witnesses that they were present at the Police Station or immediately outside thereof, was not open to any serious exception. It may be added here that no one stood nominated as culprit in the F.I.R. of SHAHOO's murder case. 14 Nazir appellant of the present case and both the deceased persons namely, Manzoor and Dosa of the present case were the suspects of Shahoo's murder case. Not only that' the two parties of the present case had no previous, enmity with each other but, as has been noticed above, they were even related inter se.

15. In view of the fact that the two eye?witnesses had a: reasonable explanation of their presence at, the place of occurrence; that they had no motive to falsely implicate Nazir appellant in the present murder case; that the occurrence in question had‑ taken place in broad daylight and finally that the said occurrence had taken place at a venue which was not a deserted area, eve find that no exception could be taken to the finding of guilt' as recorded by the learned trial Judge against Nazir appellant:

16. Certain other‑ facts had also come on record during the course of the trial such as the. occurrence having taken place in a plot within the four-walls of Police. Station Saddar of Chiniot; Nazir appellant and the two deceased persons having been in ,custody of the police of Police Station Saddar, Chiniot in connection with SHAHOO's murder case since about one and a half months prior to the present occurrence; Nazir appellant and, the two deceased persons being at work inside Police Station. Saddar immediately before the occurrence and Nazir appellant having. been, arrested at the very spot after the murder of Manzoor and Dosa deceased. These facts may; not be strictly in line with the prosecution: case as set up but they are certainly not offensive of the prosecution. case. in a manner: which could cast doubts, about the guilt of, Nazir appellant. These facts and. circumstances in fact further .strengthen the case against the ,said appellant. Needless to, H add here that in view of Ali Bepari's case (PLD 1962 SC: 502), we take even these facts into consideration and hold that they are definite further pointer, towards the quilt of Nazir appellant.

17. Consequently, we maintain the appellant's conviction for the murder of Dosa deceased as also for the murder of Manzoor deceased.

18. This brings us to the question of confirmation or otherwise of the sentences of death awarded to Nazir appellant for the said two murders.

19. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrences in. question was a sudden .affair which did not admit of any premeditation on the part of the appellant; that the weapon of offence was a KASSI which was available 'to the appellant at the time of occurrence and with which KASSI he was doing work at the relevant time; that no previous ill‑will and enmity existed between the appellant and the two deceased persons which could have led to a planned‑assault by the appellant on them ‑and that in the circumstances. imposition of a penalty of death on the appellant would be unjust.

20. We may not have any serious cavil with the facts pleaded. for seeking mitigation in the matter of punishment of the appellant but we . cannot ignore the fact. that the appellant had acted brutally, callously and in sheer cold blood by mounting an assault on the two deceased persons and he, had not remained contended by taking the life of one D of the two deceased persons but had gone on to persist with his callousness and had killed even the other. deceased person. We, therefore, find that the appellant did not l deserve any sympathy or mercy. 21‑ Resultantly, WE CONFIRM THE SENTENCES OF DEATH AWARDED TO NAZIR APPELLANT ON TWO COUNTS i.e. a sentence of death for the murder of Dosa deceased and a sentence of death for the murder of Manzoor deceased.

22. The occurrence in question having taken place after the provisions of section 302, P.P.C. as they stand today had come into force therefore, his conviction f would be under section 302(a), P.P.C. and the punishment of death would be by way of QISAS.

23. The provisions of section 302, P.P.C. as they stood on the day of occurrence did not envisage imposition of any punishment of fine, therefore, the said punishments of fine as imposed on the appellant for the said murders are set aside. An order under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. should ordinarily have been passed but since no notice was issued to the appellant for the purpose, therefore, we are not passing any such order at this stage.

24. Murder Reference No.259 of 1993 and Criminal Appeal No.488 of 1993 are disposed of in the above terms.

25. It could not be shown before us that the acquittal recorded in favour of the abovementioned acquitted accused persons was either perverse or arbitrary. Therefore, Criminal Revision No:388 of 1993 is dismissed.

26. Before we part with this judgment we feel compelled to notice the conduct of some police officers who were concerned with this unfortunate episode.

27. It had been categorically stated by Ata Muhammad complainant P. W.4 and Sardara P.W.3 that the two deceased persons as also Nazir appellant of the present case had been in police custody for more than one and a half months as suspects of SHAHOO's murder case i.e. case F.I.R. No.543, dated 20‑11‑1990 of Police Station, Saddar, Chiniot. Abdul Hameed, S.‑I. of Police Station Saddar, Chiniot was investigating this case. This conduct on the part of the said Abdul Hameed, S.‑I. was illegal and unauthorised. It had also come on record that the police officials of Police Station, Saddar, Chiniot had given KASSIS to the two deceased persons and Nazir appellant and they were being made to work in the premises of Police Station Saddar, Chiniot. Had this Kassi not been available with Nazir appellant the two innocent persons might not have lost their lives. As declared by Inspector Zulfiqar Ali of the Range Crimes of Faisalabad (D.W.1), the occurrence in question had .in fact taken place in a plot inside the four‑walls of Police Station Saddar, Chiniot. This corroborates the claim of Ata Muhammad complainant (P.W.4) that the appellant and the two deceased persons were working there with KASSIS when the occurrence in question had taken place.

28. Muhammad Hayat, S.‑I./I.O. (P.W.9) of Police Station City Chiniot apparently in collusion with the police of Police Station Saddar, Chiniot tried to shift the venue of occurrence from inside the police station to outside the same in order to eliminate the culpability or any liability falling on the shoulders of the police of Police Station Saddar, Chiniot. It was categorically declared on Oath by Ata Muhammad complainant of the present case that Nazir appellant had been apprehended at the very place of occurrence immediately after the present case by Muhammad Hayat, S.‑I. and the said appellant was in the custody of Police Station Saddar, Chiniot. Muhammad Hayat, S.‑I. had again distorted facts to protect the concerned police officials of Police Station Saddar, Chiniot.

29. But for the above‑noticed illegal and unauthorized acts of Abdul Hameed, S.‑I. of Police Station Saddar, Chiniot and the negligent conduct of the officials of the said Police Station, these two murders might not have taken place. The responsibility lies not only with the said Abdul Hameed, S.‑I. but also with the then S.H.O. of Police Station Saddar, Chiniot who is overall Incharge of the Police Station and is responsible for whatever is going on in a Police Station. Muhammad Hayat, S.‑I. of Police Station City Chiniot distorted facts and made false statements in order to cover up the above?-noticed negligent conduct of the police of Police Station Saddar, Chiniot and their illegal and unauthorized acts.

30. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab who is directed to take up proceedings against the above‑noticed police officials and then to report the action taken by him to the Registrar of this Court for the information of this Bench within one month. N.H.Q./N‑32/L ?????????? Appeal dismissed.