JAVED IQBAL vs THE STATE

' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.-- Javed Iqbal appellant was convicted on two counts of an offence under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 7 (a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 vide judgment dated 1-10-2002 rendered by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Gujranwala and was sentenced to death on each count and a fine of Rs, 50,000 on each count or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months on each count. It was ordered that the fine, if recovered shall be paid to the heirs of both the deceased. The appellant has challenged his convictions and sentences before this Court through Criminal Appeal No,398-J of 2002 which has been heard by us along with Murder Reference No, 88-T of 2002 seeking confirmation of the sentence of death passed against the appellant. We propose to decide both these matters together through the present consolidated judgment.

2. The prosecution's case against the appellant was that at about 3-15 p.m. On 13-6-2002 he had committed the murders of Nasir Javed and Muhammad Yousaf alias Kukoo in the office of Nasir Javed deceased situated in Saithi Plaza, G.T. Road, Gujranwala by firing at them with a pistol.

' The motive set up by the prosecution was that the appellant wanted to marry a girl who was employed in the office of Nasir Javed deceased and the appellant wanted Nasir Javed deceased to terminate the employment of the girl. F.I.R. No,210 was registered in respect of that incident at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala at 4-30 p.m. On 13-6-2002 for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. At the instance of Talib Hussain complainant. After completion of investigation of the case a challan was submitted before the learned trial Court.

3. On 3-8-2002 a charge with two heads under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 7 (a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was framed against the appellant and the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge. Despite that the learned trial Court decided to proceed with the appellant's trial. During the trial the prosecution produced as many as seventeen witnesses in support of its case against the appellant. Talib Hussain complainant (P.W.13) and Muhammad Anwar (P.W.14) furnished the ocular account of the incident in question. Nusrat Ghous (P. W.12) and Talib Hussain (P.W.13) deposed about the motive, Muhammad Shahbaz (P.W. 15) and Tahir Goraya, S.I. (P.W.16) stated about the recovery of a pistol from the appellant's possession during the investigation of this case. The medical evidence was provided by Dr. Iftikhar Hussain (P.W.8). Muhammad Nawaz, S.I. (P.W.17) stated about the various steps taken by him during the investigation of this case. The remaining evidence produced by the prosecution was more or less of formal nature. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant not only admitted the motive set up by the prosecution but also again admitted in so many words that he had committed the alleged murders and went on to state that the relevant criminal case had rightly been registered against him and the prosecution witnesses had correctly deposed against him. He opted not to make any statement on oath under section 340 (2), Cr.P.C. And produced no witness in his defence. At the 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, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal and the connected Murder Reference before this Court.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.

5. We have striaghtaway observed that the appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge framed against him and in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. He had once again admitted his guilt while maintaining that the present criminal case had rightly been registered against him and the prosecution witnesses had correctly deposed against him. By virtue of the provisions of section 412, Cr.P.C. An accused pleading guilty to the charge has no right of appeal against his conviction but he can maintain an appeal only to the extent or the legality of the sentence passed against him by the trial Court. We are also seized of Murder Reference sent to this Court by the learned trial Court seeking confirmation of the sentences of death passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant. We have, therefore, allowed the learned counsel for the appellant to address arguments even on the merits of the case. However, in view of the stand taken by the appellant himself in reply to the charge and also in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the appellant did not have much to say against the convictions as well as the sentences recorded by the learned trial Court. On the merits of the case we have found that the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution had consistently pointed their accusing fingers towards none other than the present appellant and the ocular account furnished by them had received ample corroboration from the motive as well as the recovery of a pistol from the appellant's possession. The pistol recovered from the appellant's possession during the investigation of this case had matched with as many as eight crime-empties recovered from the place of occurrence. The medical evidence had also provided sufficient support to the ocular account. In these circumstances we have found that the convictions of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court are not open to any legitimate exception.

6. The appellant had murdered two innocent persons and in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. He had himself maintained that he had fired more than fourteen shots at the two deceased. The appellant had advanced no moral, factual or legal justification of murdering the two deceased and, thus, he has failed to evoke our sympathy 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 deserved no less.

7. For what has been discussed above Criminal Appeal No, 398-J of 2002 is dismissed and the convictions and sentences of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court are upheld and maintained.

' Murder Reference No, 88-T of 2002 is answered in the affirmative and the sentences of death passed by the learned trial Court against Javed Iqbal appellant are hereby confirmed.