MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus THE STATE
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J. ‑- Muhammad Arshad appellant was convicted on four counts of an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. vide judgment dated 3‑1‑2001 handed down by the learned Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court, Faisalabad and was sentenced to death on each count by way of Ta'zir and to pay a sum of Rs,100,000 on each count to the heirs of each deceased by way of compensation under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. or in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years on each count. The appellant was also convicted for an offence under section 449, P.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a tine of Rs.1,00,000 or, in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years. The appellant was further convicted for an offence under section 7 of the Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997 and was sentenced to death and a fine of Rs.1,00,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellant were ordered by the learned trial Court to run concurrently and the benefit under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant Muhammad Arshad appellant has challenged his convictions and sentences before this Court through Criminal Appeal No.80‑J of 2001 which has been heard by us alongwith Murder Reference No.2‑T of 2001 seeking confirmation of the sentences of death passed against the appellant. We propose to decide both these matters together through the present consolidated judgment.
2. The prosecution's case unfolded in the F. I. R. was that Bashir Ahmad complainant was a resident of Chak No.328/GB within the area of Police Station City, Toba Tek Singh and was an agriculturist by profession. The complainant had four sons namely Muhammad Arshad appellant, Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Asif and had a daughter namely Mst. Rukhsana Kausar alias Rubina. Muhammad Arshad appellant was married and due to family disputes he was living away from the complainant and the other members of his family. At about 7‑00 a.m. on 6‑9‑2000 the complainant and his sons namely Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Asif were present near an under construction Dera when Muhammad Arshad appellant came towards them armed with a single barrel gun. 12 bore and raised a Lalkara that he would teach a lesson to the complainant and his other sons for dumping mud upon his land. The appellant then fired at Muhammad Afzal hitting him on his right hip joint. The complainant and his sons namely Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Asif then started running away from there but the appellant fired at Muhammad Asif from his back hitting him at the back of his right flank. The complainant arid his remaining son namely Muhammad Akram thereafter took shelter in their own house and told the complainant's wife namely Mst. Rukhsana Kausar alias Rubina about the incident when the appellant entered that house. The complainant and Muhammad Akram then took refuge inside a room and bolted the door of that room whereupon the appellant fired at Mst. Muniran Bibi hitting her at her left flank. Another shot fired by the appellant hit Mst. Rukhsana Kausar alias Rubina on her right flank. Thereafter, the appellant left the said house while extending threats to the complainant and others. In the meanwhile the complainant's son namely Muhammad Afzal, the complainant's wife namely Mst. Muniran Bibi and the complainant's daughter namely Mst. Rukhsana Kausar alias Rubina succumbed to their injures and died. The complainant's son namely Muhammad Asif was then taken to the Civil Hospital, Toba Tek Singh and after getting him admitted thereat for medical treatment the complainant proceeded to report the matter to the police. It was mentioned in the F.I.R. that the appellant had committed the said crimes on account of family disputes on the basis of which the complainant party and the appellant had started constructing separate Deras at their agricultural land and some mud being used in such construction had fallen in the adjacent land of the appellant which had propelled the appellant into committing the said murders and launching murderous assault upon Muhammad Asif. Muhammad Asif also died subsequently on account of the injury received by him during the said incident. F.I.R. No.381 was subsequently registered at Police Station City, Toba Tek Singh at 9‑10 a.m. on the same day i.e. 6‑9‑2000 for offences tinder sections 302/324, P.P.C.
3. The investigation of this case was conducted by Syed Alamdar Hussain Shah, S.I./S.H.O (P.W.18) who, during the investigation, inspected the place of occurrence, got the dead bodies subjected to post‑mortem examination, arrested the appellant and effected recovery of a gun from him. After completion of investigation a challan was submitted by him in that regard.
4. At the commencement of the trial the learned trial Court framed a charge with six heads under section 302, P.P.C. (four counts), section 449 P.P.C. and section 7 of the Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
5. During the trial the prosecution produced as many as eighteen witnesses in support of its case against the appellant. Bashir Ahmad complainant (P.W.13) and Muhammad Akram (P.W.14) furnished the ocular account of the incident and also deposed about the motive. Muhammad Hussain, A.S.I. (P.W.8) stated about the recovery effected from the appellant. The medical evidence was provided by Dr. Abdul Hameed (P.W.15), Dr.. Muhammad Khalid (P.W.16) and Dr. Muhammad Arif (P.W.17). Syed Alamdar Hussain Shah, S.I/S.H.O. (P.W.8) 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.
6. In his statement recorded section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant admitted causing of fire‑arm injuries to all the four deceased but while answering a question as to why he had been implicated in this case and why the prosecution witnesses had deposed against him he had responded as follows:‑
"My sister Mst. Rukhsana Kausar alias Rubina deceased had illicit relations with one Iftikhar who used to visit our house because he used to come to supply furnace oil to different brick‑kilns, situated around the village and that I very vehemently objected these illicit relations between my sister and aforesaid Iftikhar but my parents paid no heed to it and that my brothers Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Asif were consenting party because they were drug‑addicts and used to get money from said Iftikhar. I felt dishonoured in the village and that the family members refused to take notice of these illicit relations between Mst. Rukhsana deceased and aforesaid Iftikhar, I got flared up, raged and provoked. On the day of occurrence, I came to know that aforesaid Iftikhar had again come at their house on which I felt provoked and out of anger, I took my gun and started towards the village and that when my brothers Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Akram tried to intervene, they in heat of passion received fire shots and that when I reached the house, aforesaid Iftikhar had slipped away and out of provocation and in heat of passion my sister Mst. Rukhsana Kauser alias Rubina and my mother Mst. Munira Bibi received fatal shots. The P.Ws. have deposed against me due to close relationship with the deceased and they have appeared against me to shield the nefarious act and to avoid further dishonour. "
While answering another question he had further maintained that:‑
"I have two small kids and a wife to support. The occurrence took place in heat of passion and sudden provocation just to save myself for dishonour and in order vindicate the honour of my family. I need pardon and mercy."
The appellant also made a statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. but he did not produce any witness in his defence.
7. 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.
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 appellant had committed the alleged offences under the impulse of grave and sudden provocation and also on account of Ghairat and family honour and, therefore, his convictions and sentences require interference by this Court. As against that the learned counsel for the State has maintained that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant to the hilt and, therefore, the appellant's 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 and going through the record we have noticed that the occurrence in this case had taken place during broad daylight, and, the case in hand is one of single accused who had been specifically nominated in a promptly lodged F.I.R. containing all the necessary details of the incident and the role played by the appellant during the same. It is not disputed that Bashir Ahmad complainant (P.W.13) is the father of the appellant whereas Muhammad Akram (P.W.14) is the appellant's brother. Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Afzal deceased were the appellant's brothers, Mst. Rukhsana Kausar alias Rubina deceased was the appellant's sister and Mst. Munira Bibi was the appellant's mother. There is no earthy reason available on the record to explain why real father and brother of the appellant would substitute the present appellant for some other culprit in a case involving the murders of such close relations of the appellant who were his own flesh and blood. Bashir Ahmad complainant (P.W.13) and Muhammad Akram (P.W.14) had made consistent statements before the learned trial Court and their statements have inspired our complete confidence. The statements of these eye witnesses had received ample corroboration from the motive and recovery and had also found sufficient support from the medical evidence. It is of critical importance that in his statements recorded under sections 342 and 340(2), Cr.P.C. the appellant had admitted causing the fatal fire‑arm injuries to all the four deceased in this case. Thus, there is not even an iota of doubt in our minds that it was the appellant and none else who had perpetrated the said murders.
10. In his statements recorded under sections 342 and 340(2), Cr.P.C. the appellant had maintained that his sister namely Mst. Rukhsana Kausar alias Rubina deceased was carrying on illicit relations with cone Iftikhar and upon receipt of information about presence of the said Iftikhar in the house of the complainant the appellant had proceeded to the said house after having armed himself with a gun and had then committed all the murders under the impulse of grave and sudden provocation and on account of Ghairat and family honour. We have, however, found that the appellant had failed to lead any evidence either in respect of the alleged illicit relations between his sister and the above‑mentioned Iftikhar or in respect of the alleged presence of Iftikhar in the complainant's house at or around the relevant time. The claim of the appellant that his father, mother and brothers were consenting to the continued illicit relations between the appellant" sister and the said Iftikhar is a claim which has been found by us to be utterly unbelievable. In these circumstances the plea of the appellant based upon Ghairat and family honour has failed to impress us. Apart from that according to the appellant's own showing the said Iftikhar was not present in or around the complainant's house when the appellant had reached that house and, therefore, the stand taken by the appellant regarding his acting under the impulse of grave and sudden provocation has also been found by us to be completely untenable.
11. In the case in hand the appellant had stooped to the lowest ebb of filial cruelty and insensitivity and he had murdered his own mother, sister and two brothers in nothing but cold blood. In these circumstances he has failed to evoke any sympathy as far as the matter of sentence is concerned. The normal wages of the crime of murder is death and in the peculiar circumstances of this case the appellant deserved no less. Criminal Appeal No.80‑J of 2001 filed by the appellant before this Court is, therefore, dismissed and the convictions and sentences of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court are upheld and maintained with a modification that on all the counts of section 302(b), P.P.C. in case of default in payment of compensation by the appellant he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months on each count instead of rigorous imprisonment for seven years on each count ordered by the learned trial Court.
12. In view of the conclusions arrived at by us above Murder Reference No.2‑T of 2001 is hereby answered in the affirmative.
13. Death sentences of the appellant are confirmed.
N.H.Q./M‑1235/L Appeal dismissed.