SHAHBAZ AHMED Versus State
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.--- Shahbaz Ahmed son of Ghulam Haider, caste Mochi, resident of Sohawa Bolani, District Mandi Bahauddin, appellant, along with Ghulam Haider, Naseem Akhtar, Faisal Iqbal and Mst. Kishwar Bibi (all since acquitted) and Qaiser Iqbal (since P.O.) was involved in case FIR No.26/2007, dated 11.01.2007, offence under sections 302, 109, 34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Malakwal. He was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, under the afore-mentioned offences. The learned trial court after completion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant vide judgment dated 24.12.2009 in the following terms:-
> Under section 302(b), P.P.C., sentenced to death as Ta'zir on two counts with direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of both the deceased on each count and in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months on each count.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial court, Shahbaz Ahmed appellant assailed his conviction and sentence through filing Crl. Appeal No.5-J/2010 while the learned trial court forwarded Murder Reference No.86 of 2012 for confirmation of sentence of death inflicted upon the convict in terms of section 374, Cr.P.C. The complainant also filed Crl. Appeal No.349/2010 against the acquittal of Ghulam Haider, Naseem Akhtar, Faisal Iqbal and Mst. Kishwar Bibi. As all the matters are arising out of one and the same judgment of the learned trial court, therefore, these are being disposed off through consolidated judgment.
3. Prosecution story as portrayed in the FIR (Exh.PC) lodged on the complaint (Exh.PC/1) of Sohail Anjum son of Salehoon, caste Mochi (PW-13) is that the complainant is resident of Wassowal and earns his livelihood through labour. Anjum Shehzad alias Bhola brother of the complainant was employed as Driver of Taxi Car bearing registration No.6785/SGG and on 11.01.2007 his vehicle was booked for a marriage function, who according to program went to his destination. At about 4:00 p.m. brother of the complainant reached two acres away at Adda Mishranwala at pakka road while Khizar Hayat son of Nawab, Mushtaq Ahmed son of Nazeer Ahmed and Mazhar Iqbal son of Salehoon Muhammad, all Gondal by caste and residents of Ajowal were boarding in the car. All of sudden on two motorcycles (1) Shahbaz Ahmed, (2) Faisal Iqbal, (3) Qaiser Iqbal all sons of Ghulam Qadir, Mochi by caste and residents of Sohawa, armed with pistols .30-bore along with two unknown accused persons armed with rifles stopped vehicle of brother of the complainant. Faisal Iqbal raised lalkara that Anjum Shehzad and Khizar Hayat should not be spared. Shahbaz Ahmed made a fire shot with his pistol .30-bore, which landed at the chest of Anjum Shehzad. Second fire shot made by Shahbaz Ahmed landed at the chest of Khizar Hayat son of Nawab. Thereafter Shahbaz Ahmed and Qaiser Iqbal, one after the other made fire shots which landed at left temple region, near right ear and left armpit of brother of the complainant. In the meanwhile Muhammad Ameer son of Din Muhammad, caste Gondal, resident of Ajowal along with others and Mushtaq Ahmed and Mazhar Iqbal by witnessing the occurrence, tried to apprehend the accused. However, the accused persons while riding on their motorcycles fled away towards eastern side. On receipt of information the complainant reached the spot where Muhammad Ameer son of Deen Muhammad disclosed the details of occurrence. The complainant along with other PWs evacuated Anjum Shahzad and Khizar Hayat to Civil Hospital Malakwal, however, on way both of them succumbed to the injuries.
Motive behind the occurrence as disclosed in the crime report was previous litigation. It was alleged that Khizar Hayat deceased used to help the complainant party. Due to this grudge the accused persons in connivance with each other and on the abetment of Ghulam Haider son of Saee Muhammad, Naseer Akhtar son of Ghulam Qadir, Ghulam Qadir son of unknown, Kishwar Bibi daughter of Ghulam Qadir, all Mochi by caste and residents of Sohawa Bolani, had committed the murder of Anjum Shahzad alias Bhola and Khizar Hayat. It was further alleged that Ali Muhammad son of Motalli, caste Mochi, resident of Bosal Sukha and Sajid Ali son of Muhammad Khan, caste Mochi, resident of Wassowal, had seen the accused while hatching conspiracy.
4. In order to report the matter to police, the complainant proceeded to Police Station, however, at Miani Chowk, Malakwal, he met with Muhammad Nawaz, S.I. (PW-14) before whom he made his statement, which was reduced into writing and after endorsing police karvai the same was transmitted to Police Station for registration of formal FIR. Thereafter the Investigating Officer inspected the dead body of Anjum Shahzad deceased, prepared his injury statement (Exh.PM), drafted inquest report (Exh.PN) and handed down application for postmortem examination (Exh.PP). He also examined the dead body of Khizar Hayat deceased, prepared his injury statement (Exh.PQ), drafted inquest report (Exh.PR) and wrote down application for postmortem examination (Exh.PS). The Investigating Officer dispatched both the dead bodies to mortuary under the escort of Muhammad Akbar 199/C (PW-2) for postmortem examination. From the spot the Investigating Officer secured blood stained earth where Anjum Shahzad and Khizar Hayat deceased had received injuries vide recovery memo Exh.PJ and Exh.PK respectively. He also collected four crime empties of pistol .30-bore (P-6/1-4) and made into sealed parcel vide recovery memo Exh.PL. The Investigating Officer prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PT). After postmortem examination, last worn clothes of deceased Anjum Shahzad, Jarcy (P-1), Qameez (P-2) and shalwar (P-3) and of Khizar Hayat deceased, shalwar (P-4), qameez (P-5) and bunyan (P-6) all blood stained, were produced before the Investigating Officer, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PB. On the direction of the Investigating Officer and on the pointing out of the PWs, on 14.01.2007, Gulzar Hussain, Draftsman (PW-5) took rough notes of the place of occurrence and thereafter prepared scaled site plan (Exh.PD and Exh.PD/1), which was made part of the file. On 21.01.2007, the Investigating Officer arrested the appellant and obtained his physical remand. During the course of interrogation, in pursuance of disclosure on 28.01.2007, the appellant led to the recovery of motorcycle used during the occurrence (P-4), which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PG. Subsequently on 29.01.2007, the appellant led to the recovery of pistol .30-bore (P-5) which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PH. The Investigating Officer also prepared rough site plan of the place of a recovery (Exh.PH/1).
5. During the course of investigation having found the appellant guilty, the Investigating Officer prepared report under section 173, Cr.P.C. while placing his name in column No.3, which was sent to the Court of Session en-routed through the Illaqa Magistrate as provided under section 190(2), Cr.P.C. The learned trial court vide order dated 20.09.2008 formally charge sheeted the appellant and other co-accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case produced as many as fourteen (14) prosecution witnesses.
6. Sohail Anjum (PW-13) is the complainant of the case while occular account in this case consists of the statements of Muhammad Ameer (PW-11) and Mushtaq Ahmed (PW-12). On presentation of complaint, Muhammad Inayat, ASI (PW-4) had chalked out formal FIR. Gulzar Hussain, Draftsman (PW-5) had prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence while investigation in this case was carried out by Muhammad Nawaz, S.I. (PW-14).
Dr. Muhammad Ashraf, SMO (PW-7), on 12.01.2007, had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Khizar Hayat deceased and observed following injuries on his person:-
"EXTERNAL INJURIES.
Entry wound No.1. A lacerated fire arm wound of entry 0.8 x 0.8 cm circular on left side of chest near left border of sternum in 3rd intercostals space, going deep with inverted margins, blackening, tattooing nil. Corresponding cut/hole present on cloth."
After conducting postmortem examination, the doctor opined as under:-
"After careful examination of dead body I am of the opinion that injury No.1 is ante mortem in nature caused by firearm and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Cause of death is haemorrhage and shock leading to cardiorespiratory failure. Time between injuries and death within few minutes. Time between death and postmortem about 10.30 hours."
On the same day the doctor conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Anjum Shahzad deceased and observed following injuries on his person:-
"EXTERNAL INJURIES.
No.1 Exit wound. A lacerated wound of firearm measuring 3 cm x 1 cm with everted margins at the level of left temple 2 cm above the outer canthus of left eye.
2. A lacerated wound of firearm measuring 6 cm x 3 cm on front of sternum at the level of third rib intercostals space, laterally at the start it is superficial, then getting deeper on medially and then going deep in chest cavity. Burning blackening present margins inverted.
3. A firearm lacerated wound 0.8 cm x 0.8 cm above right ear with inverted margins going deep, blackening, burning present. It is entry wound of injury No.1.
4. A firearm L/W with everted margins at the level of left anterior axilla. It is exit wound of injury No.2. F.B. (metallic) after getting out of chest cavity enters in left upper arm through the entry wound adjacent to exit wound (injury No.4). One F.B. (metallic) recovered through left upper arm sealed signed and handed over to police. Corresponding cut/hole present on clothes.
After conducting postmortem examination, the doctor opined as under:-
"After careful examination of dead body I am of the opinion that all injuries are caused by firearms and ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injury Nos.1 to 4 cause of death collectively. Cause of death excessive haemorrhage and shock leading to shock and cardiorespiratory failure.
Time between injuries and death within few minutes. Time between death and postmortem about 11 hours."
Statements of rest of the prosecution witnesses are formal in nature.
7. Vide statement recorded on 31.03.2009, learned DDPP gave up Mazhar lqbal, Shahid Imran, Muhammad Zubair, Sajid Ali and Muhammad Hussain, PWs, being unnecessary. On 14.04.2009, after tendering in evidence the reports of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PU and Exh.PV), reports of Serologist (Exh.PW and Exh.PX and report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PY), prosecution evidence was closed.
8. The appellant was also examined under section 342, Cr.P.C.; wherein he opted not to appear as his own witness in terms of section 340(2), Cr.P.C. in disproof of allegations levelled against him in the prosecution evidence. However, he opted to adduce evidence in his defence. While replying to the question why this case against him and why the PWs deposed against him, the appellant made the following deposition:-
"A case FIR No.591/2006 under sections 354, 452, 379, P.P.C., at P.S. Malakwal was registered on the statement of my uncle (chacha) Ghulam Haider, co-accused against Anjum Shahzad deceased, Sohail Anjum alias Goga, Rehmat Khan and two unknown persons. The murders of both the deceased have been committed by unknown persons participants of Barat. I have been involved in this case due to previous enmity and litigation. PWs are closely related inter se and they have deposed against me due to relationship with each other and having grudge against me."
9. In defence the appellant tendered in evidence copy of FIR No.591.2006, registered under sections 354, 452, 379, P.P.C., Police Station Malakwal (Exh.DD).
10. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the learned trial court, while evaluating the evidence available on record found version of the prosecution proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, resulting into conviction of the appellant in the above stated terms.
11. At the very outset learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment has been recorded by the learned trial court in a slipshod manner without adverting to real facts of the case and material available on record. Contended that the FIR was lodged by Anjum Shahzad (PW-13), who had not seen the occurrence and his statement is based upon hearsay. It was argued that as a matter of fact the occurrence was committed by some unknown participants of the barat, however, by concocting a fabricated story the appellant was brought in this case. Contended that there are glaring contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses of occular account. Learned counsel vigorously argued that the medical evidence contradicts the occular account on material aspects. It was contended that crime empties allegedly collected from the place of occurrence were dispatched to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory on 20.01.2007 i.e. one day prior to formal arrest of the appellant, which raises serious question about authenticity of the positive report. Added that even while affecting recovery of pistol .30-bore, from the appellant, provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. were squarely violated. It was argued that neither during the course of investigation nor during the course of trial any evidence could be brought on record to substantiate the motive except oral assertions. Learned counsel submitted that during the course of trial on the same set of evidence four co-accused were acquitted of the charge. In the end learned counsel prayed that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case narrated above at the most it is not a case of capital punishment and prayed for alternative sentence provided under the statute.
12. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. It was argued that it is a daylight occurrence wherein two young men were done to death at the hands of assailants. Contended that the FIR was lodged with quite promptitude wherein the appellant is duly named with specific role of making firing on the chest of both the deceased. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that although the complainant had not seen the occurrence, however, Muhammad Ameer (PW-11) and Mushtaq Ahmed (PW-12) are the eye-witnesses, who fully substantiated the prosecution case. They remained coherent on salient features of the prosecution version and despite lengthy cross-examination nothing could be brought on record from where it could be gathered that they were not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. It was argued that motive in this case was previous enmity. Learned counsel submitted that medical evidence fully corroborates the prosecution case. Added that from the spot the Investigating Officer had collected four crime empties, which were sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory. After arrest of the appellant pistol .30-bore was recovered on his pointing out, which was also dispatched to the concerned quarter and report of Forensic Science Laboratory in this regard (Exh.PY) is positive, which straightway establishes link of the appellant with the occurrence. Contended that during the course of investigation the appellant was found guilty as such his name was placed in column No.3 of the report prepared under section 173, Cr.P.C. Lastly it was argued that the appellant by making repeated fire shots committed the murder of two young men and the prosecution established its case through straight forward, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence, therefore, the learned trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under the relevant provisions of law.
13. While arguing Crl. Appeal No.349/2010, learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submitted that the prosecution also substantiated its case against Ghulam Haider, Naseem Akhtar, Faisal Iqbal and Mst. Kishwar Bibi; hence learned trial court fell in error while acquitting them of the charge merely on the basis of investigation.
14. We have heard the arguments advanced from both sides and perused the record with the able assistance of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant, as well as, learned Deputy Prosecutor General.
15. It is very unfortunate occurrence in which brother of the complainant Anjum Shahzad alias Bhola, who was a Taxi Driver along with Khizar Hayat were murdered at the hands of assailants when they were participating in a 'Barat'. The stamp/locale of injuries at the person of both the deceased clearly reflects that the assailants were adamant to take their lives as they chose the most vital part of the body of both the deceased, however, at the same time without judicial scrutiny of the record available on file, no one can be saddled with the liability of the occurrence.
There is no denial to the fact that it was a daylight occurrence, which as per prosecution version had taken place on 11.01.2007 at 4:00 p.m. while the same was reported to the police at 5:40 p.m. whereas inter se distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is 12-KMs. Hence, in all eventualities it is a promptly lodged FIR wherein the appellant is duly named with specific role of inflicting firearm injuries on the chest of both the deceased, which proved fatal. Prosecution in order to establish its case had led evidence qua ocular account, motive, medical evidence, recovery of pistol and positive report in respect thereof, as well as, investigation.
16. Admittedly the complainant Sohail Anjum (PW-13) had not seen the occurrence as he was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time rather he reached there on receipt of information regarding the occurrence. However, the ocular account in this case has been advanced through the statements of Muhammad Ameer (PW-11) and Mushtaq Ahmed (PW-12). As far as Muhammad Ameer (PW-11) is concerned it is an admitted fact that he is father of Tasuwar Iqbal (bridegroom) in whose 'Barat' the occurrence had taken place. The presence of father of the bride in the 'Barat' of his son seems to be quite natural. He while appearing in the witness-box gave detailed pen picture of the occurrence. During the course of cross-examination while replying to the question put by defence, he stated that 'Barat' was comprising 15 cars, one bus and one coaster. Moreover, he disclosed that his car was behind the car driven by Anjum Shahzad deceased wherein Khizar Hayat was sitting on the rear seat. Hence, he had witnessed the mode and manner of occurrence qua making firing by the appellant upon both the deceased. Relevant extract out of his statement is reproduced as under:-
"It was 'BARAT' of my son Tasawar Iqbal. BARAT comprised 15 cars one bus and one coaster. The distance was covered in 10 minutes. The car carrying bridge- groom was in front followed by the car in which incident took place and I was journeying in the car just behind the car of incident."
17. As far as Mushtaq Ahmed (PW-12) is concerned, he happens to be cousin of Khizar Hayat and was participant of the barat. According to prosecution version he was sitting on the front seat of the car driven by Anjum Shahzad deceased while Khizar Hayat was sitting on the rear seat. Therefore, his presence at the spot at the relevant time being participant of the barat also seems to be quite natural. During the course of cross-examination, he was asked about the time of departure of barat, inter se distance of Ajowal and the place of occurrence, which he replied satisfactorily.
18. Careful scrutiny of statements of both the prosecution witnesses of the occular account reflects that they remained unanimous qua the date, time, mode and manner of occurrence. The defence altogether failed to bring on record an iota of evidence from where it can be gathered that the prosecution witnesses of the occular account were not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time or their statements are not trustworthy. Moreover, during the course of cross-examination, none of the PWs was questioned about the mode and manner of firing made by the appellant. Hence, it would be presumed that the defence had not disputed the mode and manner of occurrence as substantiated through the prosecution witnesses.
19. As far as medical evidence in this case is concerned, that has been substantiated through the statement of Dr. Muhammad Ashraf (PW-7), who had conducted postmortem examination over the dead bodies of Anjum Shahzad and Khizar Hayat, deceased. Perusal of statement of the doctor reflects that the medical evidence affirms the stamp/locale of injuries on the person of both the deceased. Dimension of injuries also supports the prosecution version that the fire shots were made by a weapon of .30-bore caliber. The doctor at the time of postmortem examination over the dead body of Anjum Shahzad deceased had observed blackening/tattooing at the locale of injuries, which further corroborates the prosecution version as set out in the scaled site plan (Exh.PB and Exh.PB/1) that firing upon Anjum Shahzad deceased was made from a close range. Moreover, the duration between the death and postmortem examination as given by the doctor coincides with the time of occurrence.
20. Perusal of record available on file reflects that at the time of spot inspection on 11.01.2007, the Investigating Officer had collected four crime empties (P-6/1-4), which were dispatched to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested by the Investigating Officer on 21.01.2007, who during the course of interrogation on 29.01.2007, had led to the recovery of pistol .30-bore (P-5), which was also sent to the concerned quarter. According to report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PY) pistol matched with the crime empties collected from the place of occurrence. This fact further supports the prosecution version.
21. Moreover, during the course of investigation, the appellant had led to the recovery of motorcycle YAMAHA red colour without number plate, Engine/Chassis No.5ES015681-K used during the occurrence, which aspect itself establishes link of the appellant with the occurrence.
22. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer had collected blood stained earth where Anjum Shahzad and Khizar Hayat deceased had received injuries vide recovery memo Exh.PJ and Exh.PK. The same was dispatched to the offices of Chemical Examiner/Serologist and as per reports of the concerned quarter (Exh.PU, Exh.PV, Exh.PW and Exh.PS respectively) the same was found stained with human blood, which further support the prosecution case.
23. As far as motive in this case is concerned, according to contents of the crime report it was stated to be previous enmity. Although during the course of investigation/trial sufficient evidence was not expressed by the prosecution and in ordinary cases once any motive is set forth in the crime report the prosecution is under bounden duty to prove the same but at the same time if otherwise the case of the prosecution is proved from direct evidence of ocular account finding full corroboration from medical evidence and other independent/attending circumstances, the conviction can be recorded even without motive which is though alleged but not expressed during trial in detail. Moreover, it is settled law that even in absence of any motive the conviction on capital sentence can be recorded. Respectful reliance in this regard is placed on the ratio decidendi laid down by august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Nawaz Ali and another v. The State (2001 SCMR 726); wherein it was held as under:-
"----S. 302/34---Sentence---Lack of motive by itself not a mitigating circumstance---Lack of motive altogether or inability of prosecution to prove motive for murder does not affect the imposition of normal penalty of death in a murder case, if the prosecution otherwise has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
Further in the case of Mst. Nazakat v. Hazrat Jamal and another (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 453); following principle was laid down:-
"----S. 302---Sentence---Absence of motive---Effect--- Lack of motive or weakness thereof is immaterial to withhold the normal penalty of death in murder cases, when trustworthy evidence had squarely brought home the guilt against the accused beyond any doubt."
Similar view was affirmed in a salutary judgment handed down in the case of Zulfiqar Ali v. The State (2008 SCMR 796); wherein it was held as under:-
"----S. 302(b)---Sentence---Absence of motive---Principle ---Inadequacy or weakness of motive or failure to prove the motive is immaterial if the accused is found guilty of causing the murder of the deceased and he does not deserve any leniency, because the only punishment awardable to him in such-like circumstances would be the sentence of death."
Further in the case of Musa v. The State (2008 SCMR 997); following principle was laid down:-
"----Reappraisal of evidence----Absence of motive----Not a mitigating circumstances----Motive, proved or otherwise, is immaterial in presence of ocular evidence and murder may be committed even for no motive or on a minor pretext; what to speak of proving motive, in certain cases where the motive was shrouded in mystery or was not alleged, conviction was maintained and absence of motive was not taken as a mitigating circumstance."
Moreover, in the case of Nazir Ahmed v. The State (2009 SCMR 523) the above principle was affirmed in the following terms:-
"----Ss. 302(b) & 337-A(ii)---Appraisal of evidence--- Accused was nominated in the promptly lodged FIR for the occurrence having taken place at 1-00 a.m. in the night---Ocular account furnished by complainant and eye-witnesses was fully corroborated by medical evidence---Prosecution evidence had remained unshattered despite lengthy cross-examination on witnesses---Complete lack of motive or failure of prosecution to prove the same, would not affect the imposition of normal penalty of death in murder case, if the prosecution case against accused stood proved beyond reasonable doubt---."
Similar view was held in the cases of Hameed Khan alias Hameedai v. Ashraf Shah and another (2002 SCMR 1155), Syed Hamid Mukhtar Shah v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others (2005 SCMR 427), Mukhtar Ahmad and others v. The State (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 564) and Mumraiz v. The State (2011 SCMR 1153).
24. Moreover, during the course of investigation the accusations levelled against the appellant in the crime report were found correct and his name was placed in column No.3 of the report prepared under section 173, Cr.P.C. Admittedly the findings of the Investigating Officer were not challenged before any higher forum. Moreover, the defence has absolutely failed to advance any cogent material from where it could be gathered that the appellant was substituted in this case in place of real culprit(s).
25. No doubt the weapon used by the appellant is pistol .30-bore, which is a lethal weapon. Moreover, the number, as well as, locale/seat of injuries (chest) imprints the intent of the assailant, who by making repeated fire shots on the person of both the deceased, who were quite young of 25/26 years, had committed their murder. The normal sentence for culpable homicide amounting to murder is sentence of death. The prosecution witnesses were not tested on the touchstone of Tazkia-tul-shahood, therefore, the learned trial court was justified to convict the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C., and sentence him to death as Ta'zir on two counts.
26. Upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has substantiated its case through leading evidence by the most natural witnesses of the occurrence, who remained coherent on salient features of the prosecution version. The medical evidence fully substantiates the prosecution case especially the locale of injuries and time between death and postmortem examination. Recovery of pistol and positive report of the Forensic Science Laboratory in respect thereof fully establishes the prosecution case and there is nothing on record to show even a glimpse in order to arrive at the conclusion that it was a case of substitution. Hence, by any stretch of imagination, the prosecution case is fully proved beyond iota of reasonable doubt and we are constrained to observe that the learned trial court was rightly justified in passing conviction against the appellant and sentencing him to death on two counts. Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No.5-J of 2010 filed by Shahbaz Ahmad/appellant is dismissed in toto, as a consequence whereof, conviction and sentence inflicted by the learned trial court by means of impugned judgment dated 24.12.2009 is maintained/upheld.
27. Murder Reference No.86/2012 forwarded by the learned trial court in terms of section 374, Cr.P.C., for confirmation of sentence of death inflicted upon Shahbaz Ahmad/convict succeeds, which is answered in affirmative. Death sentence is confirmed.
28. As far as Crl. Appeal No.349/2010 filed by the complainant against acquittal of Ghulam Haider, Naseem Akhtar, Faisal Iqbal and Mst. Kishwar Bibi/respondents is concerned, although they were nominated in the crime report, however, they were not assigned any overt act qua inflicting injuries on either of the deceased. Moreover, during the course of investigation, they were found innocent and such findings of the police were never challenged before any higher forum. Hence, keeping in view facts of the case and material brought forth on record we have not been able to take contrary view to that already taken by the learned trial court. Resultantly, we find no legal force in Crl. Appeal No.349/2010, which is accordingly dismissed.
JK/S-19/L Appeal dismissed.