MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus STATE
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.‑‑‑ Muhammad Ramzan appellant was convicted for an office under section 302(a), P.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide judgment, dated 17‑1‑1993 and was sentenced to death as Qisas and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 to the heirs of Muhammad Hayat deceased by way of compensation under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. or in default of payment thereof to suffer R.I. for six months. He has challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1993. We have heard his appeal alongwith Murder Reference No.57 of 1993 seeking confirmation of the sentence of death passed against him. We propose to decide both these matters together through the present consolidated judgment.
2. The prosecution case unfolded in the F.I.R. was that on 16‑6‑1992 some prisoners lodged in Central Jail, Sahiwal were weaving in the factory situated in Ihata No.4 of the said jail when at about 11.15 a.m. Muhammad Ramzan appellant and Muhammad Hayat prisoner started fighting with each other. Muhammad Ramzan appellant suddenly picked up a Takla and an iron rod f a spinning wheal (Charkha) and seriously injured Muhammad Hayat Khan herewith. Muhammad Hayat was then taken to the jail hospital and was examined thereat by a doctor who gave him initial medical treatment. Later on Muhammad Hayat was removed to the District Headquarters Hospital, Sahiwal due to his dangerous condition but he succumbed to the injuries at the said hospital whereafter his dead body was brought back to the jail hospital. According to the F.I.R. the said incident had been witnessed by two prisoners namely Mukhtar and Shera and also by Muhammad Mansha, Assistant Superintendent and Abdul Rauf, Chief Warden of the jail.
3. A written intimation in respect of that incident was sent by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sahiwal on the same day to the District Magistrate, Sahiwal and the Superintendent of Police Sahiwal. On the basis of that intimation F.I.R. No.228 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sahiwal on the same day at 1.30 p.m. for an offence under section 303, P.P.C.
4. After registration of the F.I.R. Muhammad Afzal, Inspector/S.H.O. (P. W.13) took up the investigation of the case and proceeded to the hospital of Central Jail, Sahiwal whereat he prepared inquest report and injury statement in respect of the dead body and dispatched the same to the mortuary ~ for autopsy. He also inspected the .place of occurrence, secured blood‑stained earth and took into possession a blood‑stained Takla and a blood‑stained iron rod therefrom. He then arrested Muhammad Ramzan appellant on the same day.
5.At about 11‑35 a.m. on 16‑6‑1992 Dr. laved. Mehmood Akhtar (P.W.7) medically examined Muhammad Hayat who was still alive at that time and found as many as eleven injuries on his person which were all fresh and had been caused by blunt weapon. After the death of Muhammad Hayat Dr. Muhammad Iftikhar Khan (P.W.8) conducted post‑mortem examination of his dead body at 8.30 a.m. on 17‑6‑1992. In his opinion the death had resulted due to head injury which had fractured the skull and had injured the brain and meningies leading to intracranial hemorrhage and shock caused by Injuries Nos.l to 5 inflicted by blunt weapon. According to the doctor that injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were found by the doctor to be ante‑mortem. The duration between the injuries and death was about fifteen minutes and between death and post?mortem examination was about twenty hours.
.
6. After the Post‑mortem . Examination Muhammad Afzal, Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W.13), the Investigating Officer, received the last worn blood‑stained clothes of the deceased on 17‑6‑1992. On 23‑6‑1992 he got a formal site‑plan.' of the place of occurrence prepared by a draftsman. Thereafter, he completed the other formalities, concluded his investigation and submitted. a challan against the appellant.
7. At the commencement of the trial a charge under section 302, P.P:C. was framed by the learned trial court against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
8. During the trial the prosecution produced as many as thirteen witnesses in support of its case against the appellant. Muhammad Mansha, Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail, Sahiwal (P. W.9) and Abdul Rauf. Chief Warden, Central Jail, Sahiwal (P.W.10) furnished the ocular account of the incident in question. Muhammad Mansha, Assistant Superintendent (P.W.9) also deposed about the recovery of a blood‑stained Takla and blood?stained iron rod from the possession of the appellant. Noor Ahmad (P.W.11) stated about the motive. Dr. Javed Mehmood Akhtar (P.W.7) and Dr_ Muhammad Iftikhar Khan (P.W.8) provided the medical evidence. Muhammad Afzal, Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W.13) stated about 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.
9. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Ramzan appellant denied and controverted all the allegations, of fact levelled against him by the prosecution and professed his innocence. He maintained that he had in fact affected a compromise with Muhammad Hayat deceased and that is why he had been brought back from District Jail, Lahore to Central Jail, Sahiwal otherwise he could not have been kept in the same jail with the deceased on account of the fact that the deceased had murdered the appellant's brother about two and a half years prior to this occurrence. While answering a question as to why he had been implicated in this case and as to why the prosecution witness had deposed against him Muhammad Ramzan appellant had stated as follows:‑‑
"Muhammad Hayat deceased used to become naked to the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent Jail and to the wardens who manoeuvred his torture and Muhammad Hayat was done to death in Chakki No. 14 of the Central Jail Sahiwal and as I suspected his cause and raised vice in the jail in his favour consequently the jail authority falsely roped me in this case and masked their own guilt."
The appellant, however, did not make any statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and also did not produce any evidence in his defence.
10. At the conclusion of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal found the appellant guilty of the charge and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal and the connected Murder Reference before this Court.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the record of the case with their assistance.
12. It has half‑heartedly been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The main thrust of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant has been that at any rate the case in hand did not warrant a capital sentence as there were mitigating circumstances available in this case calling for reduction of the sentence of the appellant. In this context it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the motive set up by the prosecution was non‑existence as the enmity between Muhammad Hayat deceased and Muhammad Ramzan appellant had ceased to exist on account of a compromise having been affected between them. He has also argued that the origin of the fight between the .deceased and the appellant was shrouded in mystery and, therefore, it was unsafe to maintain the sentence of death passed against the appellant. As against that the learned counsel for the State has maintained that the guilt of the appellant had been proved by the prosecution to the hilt and that there was no mitigating circumstances available in this case warranting reduction of the appellant's sentence.
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have felt no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution: had succeeded in proving its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It was case of a single accused, and a daylight occurrence. The F.I.R. had been lodged with sufficient promptitude wherein ? Muhammad Ramzan appellant had been specifically named as the sole perpetrator of the offence in question. The occurrence in question had taken place within the premises of Central Jail, Sahiwal and Muhammad Mansha, Assistant Superintendent (P.W.9) and Abdul Rauf, Chief Warden (P.W.10) had deposed about the same before the learned trial Court. Both the said witnesses were expected to be .present within the premises of the jail at the relevant time with the prisoners and were, thus, quite natural witnesses. The said witnesses were public officials and they had absolutely no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in a case of this nature. Their independence and consistency have inspired confidence of this Court and we have found them to be worthy of reliance. The stand taken by the appellant that the deceased had been killed by the jail authorities on account of his misbehaviour with the jail officials had remained completely unsubstantiated by any evidence on the record.
14. The motive set up by the prosecution also stood amply proved on the record. According to the prosecution Muhammad Hayat deceased had committed the murder of Muhammad Ramzan appellant's brother and the former had been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. for the same. At the relevant time he was serving a sentence of imprisonment for life on that account. These facts were admitted by Muhammad Ramzan appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. It had, however, been maintained by the appellant in the said statement that the appellant had entered into a compromise with the deceased over the murder of the former's brother. The appellant had, however, failed to bring anything on the record to establish or substantiate the said assertion about compromise. He had neither made a statement on oath in that regard nor had he adduced any other evidence in that context. Thus, the motive set up by the prosecution stood fully established in this case and the same provided corroboration to the ocular account.
15. A blood‑stained Takla and a blood‑stained iron rod had been snatched away from the hands of the appellant by Muhammad Mansha, Assistant Superintendent (P.W.9) immediately after the same had been used by the appellant for causing injuries to the deceased. According to the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist both the said items were stained with human blood. The said recoveries, therefore, also provided sufficient corroboration to the eye‑witnesses produced by the prosecution.
16. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution also provided sufficient support to the ocular account in all its relevant details.
17. For what has been discussed above we have felt that the learned counsel for the appellant is quite justified in not whole‑heartedly challenging the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court.
18. We have also anxiously considered the question of sentence to be passed against the appellant. As observed earlier, we have felt satisfied with the evidence of motive led by the prosecution and we are confident that it was on account of that motive that the appellant had launched aggression against the deceased. As regards the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the origin of the fight between the deceased and the appellant remained shrouded in mystery we have found the said argument to be attractive at its surface but the same has failed to persuade us to reduce the sentence of the appellant on the score. It is true that both the eye‑witnesses produced by the prosecution had not seen the origin of the fight between the deceased and the appellant but it is also equally true that it is not a universal principle that in all such cases the sentence of death passed against a murderer should be reduced to imprisonment for life on this score alone. In the present case the appellant had not received any injury at the hands of the deceased so it cannot be speculated that the deceased might have assaulted the appellant first prompting the appellant to retaliate with aggression. A verbal altercation is also generally not considered to provide sufficient provocation so as to justify a murder. Thus, even on the hypothetical plane there could not be any other reason available for the appellant to launch a fierce attack on the deceased within the otherwise safe, surroundings of a jail than to accomplish his premeditated design to commit the murder of the deceased on account of a pre‑existing motive based on private revenge. In this context it is also important to notice that the appellant had also failed to point out as to what had transpired between the deceased and him compelling the appellant to retaliate with aggression. Had the appellant taken the Court into confidence on that score then the Court might have looked at the matter with sympathy if called for in the circumstances. We have also looked at this aspect of the case from another angle. The erstwhile provisions of section 303, P.P.C. required that if a murder was committed by a convict undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life then the only sentence awardable in such a case was death. Although the said provision is no longer a part of the Pakistan Penal Code yet the spirit of the same manifesting the intention of the legislature still permeates the law. That spirit of the law clearly demonstrates that if an offender of a serious offence entailing punishment of imprisonment for life commits yet another serious offence like murder then in that case such an offender proves himself to be incorrigible and not deserving of any sympathy of the Court in the matter of sentence. This is exactly the case in the case in hand. Accordingly to the statement of Sh. Javaid Dilawar, Assistant Superintendent Jail (P.W.1) Muhammad Ramzan appellant was undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. at the time when he committed the present murder in jail. This factual aspect of the matter had remained uncontested by the appellant. In this view of the matter the appellant had proved himself to be a desperate and dangerous criminal. His existence in the society, nay even in jail, is fatally dangerous to other human beings living around him. Thus, he had failed to evoke our sympathy in the matter of sentence in this case. The normal wages of a‑crime of murder is death and in the peculiar circumstances of this case the appellant deserved no less. Therefore, the sentence of death passed against the appellant by the seamed trial Court calls for no interference by this Court.
19. For the foregoing reasons Criminal Appeal No.57 of 1993 filed by Muhammad Ramzan appellant is dismissed. His conviction recorded for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. is upheld but his sentence as Qisas, is converted into one as Ta'zir as the requirements of section 304, P.P.C. had not been fulfilled in this case for maintaining a sentence of Qisas. His sentence of death as well as the order of payment of compensation passed against him by the learned trial Court are maintained with the modification that in case of his failure to pay the amount of compensation he shall suffer S.I. for six months instead of R.I. for six months. ,
20. As the sentence; of death passed against Muhammad Ramzan appellant has been upheld and maintained by this Court, therefore, Murder Reference No. 19 of 1993 is hereby answered in the affirmative.
N.H.Q./M‑1269/L ?????
Appeal dismissed.