2003 PLP 508 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.‑‑‑The petitioners namely Faiz Rasool and Abid Ali along with one Muhammad Atique, faced trial for the charge under sections 302(b), 436/427 read with section 7 of Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997 before Special Court established under Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997 at Lahore. The learned Special Judge having found thenn guilty‑ of the charge convicted and sentenced them as under:‑‑ (1) Under section 302(b), P.P.C. for committing Qatl‑e‑Amd of Mst. Nabeela, Mst. Rasheedan Bibi, Muhammad Ali, Muhammad Usman, Amir and Muhammad Asif deceased sentenced to death on six counts and were also ordered to pay Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) each as compensation to the legal heirs of the six deceased persons, failing which to further undergo R.I. for two years each. (2) Under section 7 of Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997 sentenced to death. (3) Under section 436, P.P.C. sentenced to 10 years' R.I. each, with a fine of Rs.10,000 each, failing payment of fine to undergo R.I. for six months each. (4) Under section 427, P.P.C. sentenced to two years' R.I. each with a fine of Rs.20,000 each and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for six months each. (5) Muhammad Attique was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment on six counts and was also diiected to pay Rs.1,00,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation failing which he had to undergo R.I. for six months. The petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 1999, against their conviction and sentences before Lahore High Court, Lahore and the learned Special Judge sent a Murder Reference bearing No. 12‑T of 1999 to the High Court for confirmation of the sentence of death awarded to them. The High Court acquitted Muhammad Atique from all the charges and while maintaining the conviction and sentences of the petitioners dismissed their appeal through the judgment impugned. The prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. and narrated by the witnesses namely Muhammad Rafiq (P. W.17) and Ghulam Rasool (P. W.18) was that Abid Ali made a bet of Rs.3,30,000 with one Shehzad on 14‑8‑1998 in connection with the cricket match being played between South Africa and Sri Lanka. Muhammad Rafiq first informant, stood surety for Abid Ali for payment of bet money in case he lost the bet. Ultimately Abid Ali lost the bet and Shehzad demanded the payment of bet money from Muhammad Rafiq being surety of Abid Ali. Muhammad Rafiq approached Abid Ali but he on one or other pretext avoided payment and later assured Muhammad Rafiq that the amount would be delivered at his home sometime during the night. Muhammad Rafiq complainant while apprehending some foul play, went to the house of Ghulam Rasool in the night of 14‑8‑1998 and narrated the whole story to said Ghulam Rasool who alongwith one Malik Sifaraish accompanied Muhammad Rafiq to his house and on reaching at the gate of the house at about 3 a.m. they noticed that house was under fire and Abid Ali with another person was running out of the house. Muhammad Rafiq and his companions with the help of Mohallahdars extinguished the fire and found Mst. Nabila, wife of complainant, Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Usman his minor sons and Muhammad Amir his brother‑in‑law, were lying dead whereas the condition of Mst. Rasheedan Begum his mother- in‑law and Muhammad Asif his brother-in‑law was serious who were immediately removed to the hospital. Faiz Rasool petitioner was also injured who was got admitted in the hospital by Abid Ali on the same day. The medical examination of Faiz Rasool revealed burnt wounds on his person. Ad Ali on arrest was also medically examined and was found to have sustained burnt injuries. Learned counsel for Faiz Rasool petitioner has contended that Faiz Rasool was known to Muhammad Rafiq prior to the occurrence but he was not nominated in F.I.R. and his. subsequent involvement was nothing but substitution for the unknown culprits. Learned counsel in the light of defence version contended that Faiz Rasool being a welder by profession sustained burnt injuries while working in the shop of Abid Ali late in the night. Learned counsel representing Abid Ali petitioner has contended that it was an unseen occurrence, the report of which was lodged against the petitioner due to the suspicion. The learned counsel while taking us to the certain portions of the prosecution evidence, contended that the presence of the eye‑witnesses at the spot was highly doubtful. We having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record are of the view that in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice reappraisal of the evidence will be necessary to examine the legality of conviction and sentence awarded to the convict‑petitioners. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal in both the above petitions. N.H.Q./F‑80/S Leave granted.