MUHAMMAD WARIS vs THE STATE

' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Having been accused of causing fire-arm injuries on the persons of Muhammad Ramzan and Ghulam Abbas resulting in their death, the petitioner, along with others, was tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Layyah. He was found guilty of the charge; was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And was punished with death on two counts.

Criminal Appeal No,382 of 1998 filed by him in the Multan Bench of the learned High Court was dismissed through a judgment dated 1-8-2000 as a result whereof the said sentence of death awarded to him was confirmed in pursuance of the murder reference received for the purpose.

2. Waris petitioner is now before this Court impugning the said conviction and punishments recorded against him.

3. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for Waris petitioner at some length and have also examined the record in the light of the submissions made by him.

4. The prosecution had offered the testimony of Muhammad Amin complainant (P.W.9) and Muhammad Hanif (P.W.8) as the ones who had witnessed the occurrence in question. It is true that Muhammad Amin P.W. Was a brother of Abbas deceased while Muhammad Hanif P.W. Was a brother-in-law of the two deceased persons but then nothing could be brought on record by the defence which could establish any ill-will, animosity or reason which could have led the said two eye-witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioner in the crime in question and to falsely substitute him for the actual offender. It has also been noticed by the two learned courts including the Honourable High Court that the F.I.R. In the present case had been promptly lodged and in the said F.I.R., Waris, petitioner stood specifically named as the one who had done the two deceased persons to death and wherein the names of both the eyewitnesses also stood recorded. The names of the said two eye-witnesses could not have been mentioned in such a promptly lodged F.I.R. If they had not been with the deceased persons at the time of their death. The explanation offered by the said two eye-witnesses regarding their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time had been accepted by the two learned Courts and no reason exists which could persuade us to hold otherwise. Both these P. Ws. Were thus, natural and independent witnesses of the occurrence who had been rightly delivered by the two learned Courts. Corroboration is only rule of caution and not a rule of law and if the eye-witness account is found reliable and trustworthy then there is hardly any need to look for any corroboration.

5. It had also been found by the two learned Courts that the occurrence in question was a broad- daylight occurrence which had taken place on a road side and thus, there was hardly any occasion for the said occurrence having gone unwitnessed or the assailant having escaped unidentified. The two deceased persons had received a number of firearm injuries on their bodies which could have offered a good opportunity to the complainant party to burden more than one person with the said injuries which having not been done, was a valid circumstance, indicating the truthfulness of the prosecution case.

6. We have also gone through the medical evidence with the assistance of the learned Advocate Supreme Court but could not find the same to be destructive of the ocular account offered by ,the two witnesses.

7. Having thus, examined all aspects of the matter, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings of guilt recorded against petitioner by the trial Court and affirmed by the Honourable High Coml.

8. It was the prosecution's own case that the reason prompting Waris petitioner to commit the crime in question was his suspicion regarding illicit relations of Ramzan deceased with the petitioner's sister. It could have been argued that the petitioner, in, the circumstances, deserved some leniency provided the petitioner had confined himself only to causing of the death of Ramzan deceased. He, however, did not do so and went on the shower bullets even on an unconcerned Ghulam Abbas deceased which indicates the brutality and the callousness on the part of the parties which in turn disentitles him to any sympathy or leniency.

9. In this view of the matter, even the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner did not admit of any interference.

10. This petition is, therefore,.Dismissed. .