2006 PLP 3280 (YLR)

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.-Muhammad Ashfaq appellant was convicted on three counts of an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. vide judgment dated 17-1-2001 handed .down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura and was sentenced to death as Taz'ir on each count and to pay of sum Rs.50,000 to the heirs of each of the three deceased by way of compensation under section 54-A, Cr.P.C. or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months on each count. The appellant was also convicted for an offence under section 324, P.P.C. for launching a murderous assault upon Waseem Shahid (P.W.2) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The appellant has challenged his convictions and sentences before this Court through the present appeal which has been heard by us along with Murder Reference No.245 of 2001 seeking confirmation of the sentences of death passed by the learned trial Court against him. We propose to decide both these matters together through the present consolidated judgment.

2. According to the prosecution's case unfolded in the F.I.R. Muhammad Yaqoob complainant was a resident of Dera Khojian, Bashmoola Lagar situated within the area of Police Station Mananwala, District Sheikhupura and was an Agriculturist by profession. The complainant's brother namely Muhammad Mansha had died about three years prior to the present occurrence and he and his wife namely Mst. Hakim Bibi were blessed with three daughters and three sons out of which Mst. Samina Toor and Mst. Robina Toor were grown ups whereas the son namely Waseem Shahid was aged about 11/12 years. The other children of the couple were minors at the time of the present incident. After the death of the complainant's brother namely Muhammad Mansha his widow namely Mst. Hakim Bibi had contracted Nikah with another brother of the complainant namely Muhammad Ramzan and the said Muhammad Ramzan used to bring up the children of Mst. Hakim Bibi from her former husband. Muhammad Ashfaq appellant used to live at the house of the complainant's deceased brother namely Muhammad Mansha for the last about 8/9 years and he was treated as a member of the family. A few months prior to the present occurrence the engagement of Mst. Samina Toor and Mst. Robina Toor had been settled by the complainant, party. The house of the complainant's brother namely Muhammad Ramzan adjoined the house of the complainant towards its western side. During the night between 17/18-5-1998 the complainant was sleeping in the courtyard of his own house and at about 10-30 p.m. he heard his nephew namely Waseem Shahid shrieking in the house of Muhammad Ramzan whereupon the complainant climbed up the stairs of his house and saw in the courtyard of the house of Muhammad Ramzan that Muhammad Ashfaq appellant was giving blows with his Chhurri at the neck of Waseem Shahid and Waseem Shahid was resisting the assault with his hands. An electric bulb was alight at that time in the courtyard of the house of Muhammad Ramzan. The complainant raised a Lalkara warning Muhammad Ashfaq appellant and also raised hue and cry whereupon Muhammad Ashfaq, appellant decamped from the spot while brandishing his Chhurri. The complainant's neighbour namely Muhammad Shafi had seen Muhammad Ashfaq appellant fleeing from the place of occurrence. When the complainant and Muhammad Shafi entered the compound of the house of Muhammad Ramzan they saw that Mst. Hakim Bibi, Mst. Samina Toor and Mst. Robina Toor were lying dead on their cots after having been slaughtered. Waseem Shahid told them that Muhammad Ashfaq appellant had murdered his mother and two sisters with a Chhurri. The complainant and Muhammad Shafi tried to apprehend Muhammad Ashfaq but he managed to escape by taking advantage of darkness of the night. At that time the complainant's brother namely Muhammad Ramzan was asleep on the roof of his house and when he did not wake up despite the noise he was checked by the complainant and others and it was found that he was unconscious. The complainant and others gathered that Muhammad Ashfaq appellant had administered some intoxicant to Muhammad Ramzan, Mst. Hakim Bibi, Mst. Samina Toor and Robina Toor and had made them unconscious for the purpose of murdering them. The motive set up in the F.I.R. was that Muhammad Ashfaq appellant had asked Mst. Hakim Bibi for the hand of Mst. Robina Toor in marriage for the appellant but Mst. Hakim Bibi had declined that proposal. According to the F.I.R. Mst. Hakim Bibi had discussed the matter with the complainant and the complainant had admonished the appellant in that regard and had asked him to leave the house of Mst. Hakim Bibi but the appellant had asked for forgiveness which was granted. According to the F.I.R. the appellant had murdered the complainant's sister-in-law and two nieces apart from launching a murderous assault upon his nephew because he felt aggrieved of the fact that the nieces of the complainant had been engaged with somebody else and not with the appellant. Waseem Shahid and Muhammad Ramzan were sent to a hospital at Sheikhupura for medical treatment. Leaving the dead bodies at the place of occurrence in the care of Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Siddique P.Ws. Muhammad Yaqoob complainant proceeded to report the matter to the police but on his way he met a police officer before whom he made a statement in respect of the above mentioned incident at 1-00 a.m. on 18-5-1998. On the basis of that statement of the complainant formal F.I.R. No.137 was subsequently registered at Police Station Mananwala, District Sheikhupura at 1-30 a.m. on 18-5-1998 in respect of offences under sections 302 and 324, P.P.C.

3. The investigation of this case was conducted by Arshad Hussain, S.-I. (P.W.17) and Nazir Ahmad, Inspector/ S.H.O. (P.W.16) and during the investigation the place of occurrence was inspected, injury statements and inquest reports were prepared the dead bodies were sent to the mortuary for autopsy, blood-stained earth was secured from different places, a rough site-plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. During the night of occurrence the appellant was arrested, his blood-stained clothes were secured and a blood-stained Chhurri was recovered from his possession. After the post-mortem examination of the dead bodies; the last-worn clothes of the deceased were secured and later on a formal site-plan of the place of occurrence was got prepared and after completion of the investigation a challan was prepared and %submitted in connection with this case.

4. At the commencement of the trial the learned trial Court framed a charge with three heads under section 302, P.P.C. and one head under section 324, P.P.C. against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

5. During the trial the prosecution produced seventeen witnesses in support of its case against the appellant. Muhammad Yaqoob complainant (P.W.1) and Waseem Shahid (P.W.2) furnished the ocular account of the incident in question. Muhammad Yaqoob complainant also deposed about the motive. Muhammad Ramzan (P.W.14) stated about giving of some tablets by the appellant to him before the present occurrence which tablets had made the said witness unconscious. The wajtakkar evidence was provided by Muhammad Shafi (P.W.3). Sana Ullah (P.W.13) stated about recovery of a blood-stained Chhurri from the appellant's possession and recovery of blood-stained clothes of the appellant during the investigation of this case. The medical evidence was provided by Dr. Sail' Ullah (P.W.4), Dr. Abdul Bari (P.W.5) and Dr. Foqia Asif (P.W.9). Arshad Hussain, S.-I. (P.W.17) and Nazir Ahmad, Inspector/ S.H.O. (P.W.16) stated about the various steps taken by them during the investigation of this case. The remaining evidence produced try the prosecution was more or less formal in nature.

6. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied and controverted all the allegations of fact levelled against him by the prosecution and professed his innocence. While responding to a question as to why he had been implicated in this case and as to why the prosecution witnesses had deposed against him the appellant had stated as follows:-- "I was adopted by Muhammad Mansha husban of Mst. Hikim Bibi and father of Samina, Robina deceased and Waseem Shahid injured P.W. from my childhood. He treated me just like real son. He had got some dispute with regard to land with his brothers and father because they had not given him any share of land. Muhammad Mansha was a saint and I was his follower (Murid). I had been serving him as son and Murid as well and was looking after his interest and his family members. After the death of Muhammad Mansha Shahid I remained attached with his family members. His widow Mst. Hakim Bibi was as my mother, whereas his daughters Robina and Samina Toor were just like my sisters and Waseem Shahid as my real brother. Other brother of Muhammad Mansha Shahid did not like me as I was hurdle in their way of usurping all the property and cash amount of legal heirs of Muhammad Mansha Shahid. Muhammad Mansha was a school teacher and a sum of Rs.5,00,000 including gratuity, pension and G.P. Fund etc. of Muhammad Mansha Shahid was collected by Mst. Hakim Bibi deceased but meanwhile Ramzan P.W. contracted marriage with Hakim Bibi and he took all cash amount and other property. Landed property was occupied by the complainant party and nothing was given to the deceased person. The cash amount was also misappropriated by the complainant party. I and both the daughters Samina and Robina raised protest against Nikah of Ramzan with Hakim Bibi deceased. During the night of occurrence I was sleeping in the T.V. room, whereas Mst. Hakim Bibi, Robina Toor and Samina Toor and Waseem Shahid were sleeping on the cots in Verandah and courtyard. I heard the shriekes of Waseem Shahid injured P.W. and woke up and he was calling chacha save me (URDU). I rushed towards Waseem Shahid injured when Mumtaz brother of the complainant having a Chhurri in his hand outside. I followed him up to the outer gate and he threatened me of dire consequences on some other day. Thereafter I came back and took Waseem Shahid into my hands and raised alarm. Thereafter I took gun lying in side the room and fired two Shots which attracted other residents of the village. The complainant and other family resides in a separate adjacent houses. They had come on the spot much thereafter. I took him to Dr. Abdul Haq for medical treatment. Chairman Muhammad Idrees telephonically informed the police who came on the spot. I told all the story to the police officer. I remained with other family members and the police party whole the night. But in the morning I was arrested by the police. Shujah Ahmad Khan real brother Zia Ahmad Khan the then MPA was contesting the election to the seat of District Council. The complainant party was his supporters, whereas I was supporter of his opponent Nazir Ahmad. By exerting pressure through Zia Ahmad Khan, the complainant party is involved in the commission of murder of all the three ladies and causing injury on the person of Waseem Shahid. Muhammad Yaqoob is real brother of Mumtaz actual culprit, whereas Muhammad Shafi is his paternal uncle. They all have made false statement against me. Both are the witnesses of nikah of Ramzan with Hakim Bibi. They have made false statement against me to save real culprit. Waseem Shahid is minor and at the mercy of complainant and his brother/ P.W. He was under threat and was harassed to depose against me because he could not afford to make statements against the wishes of the complainant party who is in possession of land and other belonging. I am innocent." The appellant, however, opted not to make a statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and he did not produce any witness in his defence.

7. Upon conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court found the prosecution's case against the appellant to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, it convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal and the connected Murder Reference before this Court.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence in this case had taken place during a night; Muhammad Yaqoob complainant (P.W.1) was not a resident of the house wherein the present occurrence had taken place; Shahid (P.W.2) was a child witness who had been tutored by the complainant to make a statement in support of the complainant's case against the appellant' there were contradictions in the prosecution's case regarding administering of an intoxicant by the appellant to Muhammad Ramzan (P.W.14) and the victims; the motive set up by the prosecution had remained far from being established; the evidence produced by the prosecution regarding recovery of blood-stained Chhurri and blood-stained clothes of the appellant was discrepant and unbelievable; and the medical evidence did not provide full support to the ocular account furnished in this case. It has, thus, been maintained by her that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the version of the incident advanced by the appellant ought to be accepted by this Court in its entirety. With these submissions she had canvassed that the appellant deserves to be acquitted by this Court by extending the benefit of doubt to him. As against that the learned counsel for the State have maintained in unison that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the appellant's guilt to the hilt and, therefore, his convictions and sentences recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference by this Court.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length and after going through the record of this case from cover to cover with their assistance we have straightaway observed that the case in hand is one of triple murder and murderous assault upon another arid the present appellant happens to be the solitary accused person in this case. The F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with reasonable promptitude and the appellant had specifically been nominated therein was the sole perpetrator of the alleged offences. It is admitted at all the hands that the appellant was living with the complainant party and the victims since his childhood and the occurrence had taken inside the' house where the appellant and the victims resided. Both the eye-witnesses produced in this case, i.e. Muhammad Yaqoob complainant (P.W.1) and Waseem Shahid (P.W.2) knew the appellant since his childhood and, thus, there was no question of any mistaken identity of the appellant. The occurrence in this case had taken place during a night but the site-plan of the place of occurrence (Exhibit-PL) had duly referred to availability of an electric bulb of 200 watts at the place of occurrence at the relevant time.

10. Muhammad Yaqoob complainant (P.W.1) was a brother-in-law of Mst. Hakim Bibi deceased and was a paternal uncle of Mst. Samina Toor and Mst. Robina Toor deceased besides being a paternal uncle of Waseem Shahid (P.W.2). He lived in the house adjoining the house wherein the occurrence had taken place and he had himself seen the appellant causing injuries to Waseem Shahid (P.W.2). He had absolutely no motive to falsely implicate the appellant in a case of this nature. He had made a straightforward statement before the, learned trial Court which had inspired its confidence.

11. Waseem Shahid (P.W.2) was a son of Mst. Hakim Bibi deceased and a brother of Mst. Samina Toor and Mst. Robina Toor deceased and he had himself sustained many injuries on his person during the occurrence in issue. The resistance put up by him against the assailant was evident from the fact that he had received many injuries on, his fingers and thumbs and this had confirmed the fact that he was very much awake at the time of causing of injuries to him by the assailant. This witness was aged about thirteen years at the B time of making his statement before the learned trial Court and he had clearly and categorically pointed his accusing finger towards none other than the present appellant for causing of the injuries to all the three deceased and to his witness. This witness had the stamps of injuries on his person to vouchsafe his presence at the scene of the crime at the relevant time and he had no motive whatsoever to falsely implicate the present appellant or to substitute him for the real offender. This witness too had made a straightforward statement before the learned trial Court which had inspired its confidence.

12. Muhammad Ramzan (P.W.14) had deposed before the learned trial Court regarding provision and administering of intoxicating tablets by the present appellant to him which had made him unconscious before the occurrence in issue. This witness had been medically examined by Dr. Saif Ullah (P.W.4) at 5-15 a.m. on 18-5-1998 and even at that time this witness was semi-conscious. This witness too had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in a case of this nature.

13. Muhammad Shafi (P.W.3) had seen the appellant running away from the place of occurrence with a blood-stained Chhurri in his hand and with his own clothes smeared with blood of the victims. This witness was an immediate neighbour and his claim regarding having been attracted to the place of occurrence upon the noise emanating from the scene of the crime has been found by us to be a claim which was not unbelievable or unusual. This reason to falsely depose against the brutal and merciless killings.

14. The motive set up by the prosecution was that the appellant was c interested in getting married to Mst. Robina Toor deceased but his proposal in that regard was rejected by Mst. Hakim Bibi deceased and it was on the basis of that grievance that he had decided to butcher the entire family of the deceased. Muhammad Yaqoob complainant (P.W.1) had deposed before the learned trial Court about the said motive and he had also claimed that he had personally admonished the appellant in that regard. Due to his very close relationship with the deceased personal involvement of the complainant in the said matrimonial issue was quite believable.

15. The record of this case shows that within a matter of hours after the present occurrence the appellant had been apprehended by the police during the same night and a blood-stained Chhurri and blood-stained clothes of the appellant were recovered and secured. Staining of his clothes with the blood of the victims had in fact been admitted by the appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The Chemical Examiner and the Serologist had subsequently confirmed that the Chhurri recovered from the appellant's possession was stained with human blood.

16. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution had provided ample support to the ocular account furnished by it inasmuch as the date and time of occurrence, the weapon used and the locale of the injuries stated by the eye-witnesses had all been confirmed by the medical evidence. .

17. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant had accepted his presence at the scene of the crime at the time of the present occurrence and even through his suggestions put to the eye-witnesses the appellant had acknowledged his availability at the scene of the crime at the relevant time. He had, however, advanced a different version of the incident in question and according to his version it was one Mumtaz, a brother of Muhammad Yaqoob complainant (P.W.1), who had murdered the three deceased and had caused injuries to Waseem Shahid (P.W.2). There is no denying the fact that apart from a verbal assertion made by him in that regard the appellant had miserably failed to bring anything on the record of this case to establish or substantiate the said version advanced by him.

18. For what has been discussed above we have felt no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution had indeed succeeded in establishing the appellant's guilt to the hilt and that his convictions recorded by the learned trial Court were amply justified. As regards the question of sentence we have found that the appellant had mercilessly butchered three innocent ladies and had launched a murderous assault upon a boy of tender age. It is admitted at all hands that the appellant had been brought up in the house of the deceased and the injured victim ever since his childhood and he had been treated by them as a member of their family but he had shown no mercy on them. He had not only cold-bloodedly prepared a plan for slaughtering the whole family of his benefactors but had also executed the same by administering intoxicant to those concerned. The blood-bath and butchery carried out by the appellant and the savagery perpetrated by him surely disentitles him to any sympathy of this Court in the matter of sentence. The normal wages of a crime of murder is death and in the peculiar circumstances of this case the appellant deserves no less.

19. As a sequel to the discussion made, above this appeal is dismissed and the convictions and sentences of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court are upheld and maintained.

20. Murder Reference No.245 of 2001 is answered in the affirmative and the sentences of death passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant are confirmed. H.B.T./M-499/L Appeal dismissed.