PLJ 2011 SC 313
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)--
----Art. 2(e)--Interested witness--Evidentiary value of--Where the interested witnesses were also chance witnesses and should normally had not been present at the place of occurrence, their statements could not be relied upon. [P. 315] A
Administration of Justice--
----In order to convict an accused for murder, the Court must first be satisfied that the murder had been committed and that the accused had committed the murder. [P. 316] B
As Per Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J.
Administration of Justice--
----Mere absence of motive or weakness of the motive attributed to the accused would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution--Appeal allowed. [P. 326] C
Mr. Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, ASC for Appellant.
Mr. Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, ASC for Complainant.
Mr. Shahid Mehmood Abbasi, DPG for State.
Date of hearing: 20.1.2010.
PLJ 2011 SC 313
[Appellate Jurisdiction]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Anwar Zaheer Jamali & Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
NADEEM alias Nanha alias Billa Sher--Appellant
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 370 of 2008, decided on 9.2.2010.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-5-2008 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore
Judgment
Khilji Arif Hussain, J.--This appeal arises out of judgment dated 20.5.2008 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 2152 of 2002, whereby appeal filed by the appellant, was dismissed and Murder Reference No. 136 of 2007, was answered in affirmative.
2. Brief facts to decide the appeal are that FIR was registered by Tanveer Abbas, complainant son of the deceased, (PW.4) on 24.2.2002 at
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 11 witnesses. Complainant Tanveer Abbas appeared as PW.4 and Muhammad Afzaal appeared as PW.5 as eye-witness. After recording the evidence and statement of the appellant under Section 342 Cr. P.C, trial Court vide judgment dated 14.12.2002, convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to death.
4. Aggrieved by the said order appellant filed appeal before the Lahore High Court,
5. Heard Mr. Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, ASC for the appellant, Mr. Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, ASC for the complainant and Mr. Shahid Mehmood Abbasi, D.P.G.
6. Learned Advocate for the appellant vehemently argued that motive given in the FIR is that on the day of the incident at
7. We have gone through the impugned judgments of the trial Court as well as of the High Court and evidence on record carefully.
8. The F.I.R. was registered at
9. It further appears from the record that the motive has been given as quarrel between appellant, deceased and Zulfiqar Ali in the morning but, PW.9 Zulfiqar Ali in his statement had not said a single word about motive regarding quarrel between his deceased father and the appellant.
10. The complainant PW.4 and Muhammad Afzaal PW.5 are chance witnesses as they should not normally be present at the place of occurrence and it is difficult to rely upon their statements being chance and highly interested witnesses. Zulfiqar Ali PW.6 in whose presence some altercation took place as alleged between the deceased and the appellant, which is the alleged motive of committing the murder, is not proved.
11. The contradiction between the statements of eye-witnesses coupled with the facts that they are chance witnesses made the case of prosecution doubtful. The P.W.4 said that he saw his father lying on the ground and accused was giving `chhurri' blows and accused was raising Lalkara, and they proceeded towards accused but he made his escape good whereas PW.5 in his statement said that he informed the PW.4 that accused is causing `chhurri' blows to his father, and thereafter, he, Irfan Ahmad proceeded towards the accused.
12. Dr. Khalid Mehmood PW.2 who conducted postmortem examination, has not produced original postmortem report despite suggestion made that the copy which is produced not tally with the original record. In the report he produced five injuries have been shown on the person of the deceased whereas in his statement PW.2 stated multiple wound under Injury No. 1 which where less than 20.
13. Irfan Ahmed who is eye-witness of the occurrence, sitting on rear side of motorcycle, and a natural witness, under the instruction of complainant was given up by the prosecution.
14. In order to convict an accused for murder the Court must be satisfied first that the murder has been committed then it must be satisfied that the accused has committed the murder. The question of sentence demands utmost care on the part of the Court dealing with the life and liberties of the accused person.
15. On having gone through the medical evidence on record and withholding of the evidence of Irfan Ahmed an eye-witness and not making a statement about the motive by Zulfiqar Ali real son of the deceased and further that no independent witness of the locality where the incident took place, a `Bazar' joined, made case of the prosecution doubtful. It is cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that any genuine doubt arising out of the circumstances of the case should be extended to the accused as of the right and not as concession. It is difficult to say that prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt.
16. For the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 20.5.2008 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore and of Session Court dated 14.12.2002 in Session Case No. 38 of 2002 are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302(b) PPC. If not required to be detained any other case, he is directed to be released forthwith.
17. These are the detailed reasons of our short order dated 20.1.2010.
Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J.--At the time of passing of short order dated 20.1.2010, dissenting with the majority view of the Bench, I have dismissed this appeal, reasons thereof are recorded as under:--
2. This appeal, with the leave of the Court, is directed against the common judgment of a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court dated 20.5.2008, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2152 of 2002 and Murder Reference No. 137 of 2007, whereby the said appeal under Section 410 Cr.P.C., preferred by appellant herein against the judgment of the trial Court dated 14.12.2002 in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2002, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC for causing qatl-i-amd of one Faqir Muhammad, and awarding him death sentence with further directions for payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C., to the legal heirs of the deceased, was dismissed, and consequently the judgment of the trial Court was maintained and murder reference made by the trial Court was answered in the affirmative.
3. These criminal proceedings have emanated from lodging of F.I.R. No. 136 of 2007, at Police Station City, Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura by one Tanvir Abbas on 24.2.2002 at 1740 hours. In the said F.I.R., complainant, who is stated to be the son of Faqir Muhammad (deceased) has made narration of facts regarding the occurrence, which had taken place at 1610 hours on the same day, opposite Mughal Tent Service Shop at Beriwala Chowk, Nankana Sahib wherein, in the sight of complainant and two other persons Irfan Ahmad and Muhammad Afzaal, the appellant, by causing several chhurri blows at the body of Faqir Muhammad caused his qatl-i-amd, as he succumbed to such injuries before reaching to the hospital.
4. After investigation of the crime, which included completion of formalities of collection of blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence, postmortem of the deceased, recovery of crime weapon "chhurri" from the possession of the appellant, site sketch etc., the case was challaned before the trial Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib, where, on 24.6.2002, the accused was charged by the trial Court for commission of offence under Section 302 PPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the appellant, examined eleven witnesses, out of whom PW-4 Tanvir Abbas, the complainant and son of the deceased, and PW-5 Muhammad Afzaal were the two eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The relevant documents Ex.PA to Ex.PH/1 were also produced by the prosecution relating to the investigation of the crime to support its version as per narration by the complainant in the F.I.R.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, Section 342 Cr.P.C. statement of the appellant was recorded on 31.8.2002, wherein he denied the charges levelled against him. However, neither he opted to produce any evidence in defence nor he examined himself under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C.
7. The trial Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib, after conclusion of trial in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2002, passed its detailed judgment dated 14.12.2002, wherein it recorded the gist of evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, made reference of all the documents produced by the prosecution, and particularly taking into consideration the ocular account of the occurrence furnished by the two prosecution witnesses in the case, it came to the conclusion that the guilt of the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302(b) PPC, for causing qatl-i-amd of Faqir Muhammad (deceased) was fully proved. Accordingly, appellant was convicted and sentenced to death with payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-, and in default thereof one year simple imprisonment as well as payment of Rs. 100,000/-compensation in terms of Section 544-A, for the benefit of legal heirs of the deceased.
8. The appellant, being aggrieved by such judgment, preferred appeal under Section 410 Cr.P.C. before the Lahore High Court, which was heard by a Division Bench alongwith Murder Reference No. 136 of 2007, made by the trial Court. The learned Division Bench vide its judgment dated 20.5.2008, dismissed the appeal and answered the murder reference in affirmative, inter alia, with the following discussion:--
"9. The eye-witness account in this case has been furnished by Tanveer Abbas (PW-4), the son of the deceased and complainant of the F.I.R, and Muhammad Afzaal (PW-5). It has been noticed that Muhammad Afzaal (PW-5) is an independent witness who is neither related to the deceased nor the complainant of the F.I.R. and his presence at the place of occurrence is natural, well explained and free from doubt. According to Tanveer Abbas, (PW-4), on 24.2.2002 at 4:10 p.m. in his presence and in his view the appellant inflicted chhurri blows on the person of Faqir Muhammad deceased in consequence of an altercation which had taken place between the appellant and the deceased at 10:00 a.m. the same day over a money dispute. The statement of this witness with the exception of motive aspect of the case, has received corroboration in all material particulars form the statement made by Muhammad Afzaal (PW-5) who, as mentioned earlier, is an independent witness and has no plausible reason to falsely implicate the appellant in the crime. Some minor discrepancies have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the statements of these two witnesses which in our view are trivial in nature and do not in any way adversely effect the merits of the prosecution case or reflect negatively on the evidence furnished by the said witnesses. The presence of the witnesses is natural which even otherwise has not been seriously questioned by the defence. We have no hesitation in holding that the ocular account furnished by the witnesses is unimpeachable and credit worthy and has rightly been accepted by the learned trial Court as such.
10. The medical evidence in the case was furnished by Dr. Khalid Mahmood (PW-2) who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 24.2.2002 at 9:00 p.m. and found the following injuries on his body:--
1. Multiple stab wounds all around the Umbilicus.
2. Two stab wounds in lower central chest.
3. Two stab wounds on the back of chest one on the left side and other on the right side.
4. Two stab wounds on the front of left thigh.
5. One stab wound on the back of right knee."
According to Dr. Khalid Mahmood (PW-2), all the injuries were ante-mortem and caused by a sharp edged weapon. The death was caused due to bleeding and shock individually on account of Injuries No. 3 and 5 and collectively on account of all the injuries which were sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. The time between the receipt of injury and death was stated as immediate whereas between the death and postmortem as six hours. The account furnished by this witness is in consonance with the eye-witness account and the same is conclusive as to the time of occurrence, the locale of injuries and the weapon used.
11. Adverting to the evidence of recovery of blood stained chhurri (P-1) on the pointation of the appellant from outside the northern wall of Government Boys Degree College buried in the ground near a bush and taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PG, it has been observed that at the time of recovery it was stained with blood. The witnesses of recovery Lashkar Ali (PW-3) who is a private and an independent witness and Ghulam Sarwar, Sub-Inspector (PW-11) in the evidence furnished by them have fully corroborated each other in material aspects. The said witnesses have no plausible reason to falsely implicate the appellant in the crime and we have no reason to disbelieve their evidence. Although it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that no independent witness was associated by the police with the recovery proceedings and, therefore, the same could not be relied upon. We are afraid the argument has no force as both the witnesses are unanimous in their stance that there were no shops or residential houses in the vicinity of the place of recovery of weapon. It was further argued by the learned counsel that Lashkar Ali (PW-3) in his statement has not mentioned that the Chhurri was blood stained at the time of recovery and, as such, it was of no avail to the prosecution. We tend to disagree with the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant as the chhurri was dispatched to the Chemical Examiner for analysis which in its report Ex.PM affirmed that the weapon was stained with blood. Scrapings sent to the Serologist, Government of Punjab, were found to be stained with human blood which is evident from the report dated 30.7.2002 (Ex.PO). We carry no doubt in our minds that the recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant stands proved at the trial.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the number of injuries suffered by the deceased suggest that the same were caused by more than one person. We are afraid the argument has no force. The witnesses are consistent in their stand about the injuries being caused by the appellant alone. The deceased in the occurrence suffered 16 incised wounds which lend strength to our view that the appellant has committed murder of the deceased in cold blood and with vengeance.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly argued that the motive behind the occurrence was not proved at the trial and, therefore, the appellant deserves a lesser sentence. We are afraid this contention is also without any substance as in the first instance the motive has been duly proved by the prosecution and secondly even if the motive is insufficient or is not proved, it does not furnish a mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser sentence. Reliance is placed on the case of Moazam Shah v. Mohsan Shah & another (PLD 2001 S.C. 458). Even otherwise, motive relates to the state of mind of an accused which can be formed at the spur of the moment.
9. Mr. Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, learned ASC, arguing the case of the appellant contended that the ocular testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 was not confidence inspiring for the reason that firstly, they were chance witnesses, and secondly, one of them i.e. complainant, was close relative of Faqir Muhammad (deceased), being his son. Further, he seriously questioned the recovery of crime weapon from the possession of the appellant, which is said to have been made as per Ex.PG, on his pointation, around some bushes near the northern wall of
10. On the other hand, Mr. Zafar Abbas Naqvi, learned ASC appearing for complainant strongly contended that it is the quality of evidence and not its quantity, which was material for the purpose of proving the case of prosecution against the accused/ appellant, therefore, non-examination of third eye-witness of the occurrence, cannot be termed fatal to the case of prosecution. He further argued that mere fact that complainant PW-4 is real son of the deceased was not a disqualification for him to depose, once he was eye-witness of the occurrence. More so, when the place of occurrence was not located far away from his residence and therefore, he was, not a chance witness of the occurrence. Learned counsel also made specific reference to the evidence of PW-5 Muhammad Afzaal, who was an independent witness from the same locality, and had witnessed the whole occurrence, during which, Faqir Muhammad, father of the complainant was done to death by repeated sharp side blows at him by the appellant on the vital parts of his body through a "chhurri" having its sharp blade of 9" x 1«". Lastly, he made reference to the deposition of PW-2 Dr. Khalid Mahmood, who had conducted the postmortem of deceased Faqir Muhammad (Ex.PB), to show that as many as seven sharp side injuries were inflected upon the body of the deceased, which fully corroborated the oral testimony of two eye-witnesses about the manner of occurrence.
11. Mr. Shahid Mehmood Abbasi, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State, adopting the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant, further added that the occurrence had taken place in broad day time at 1610 hours; appellant is the only nominated accused of the crime with specific role of causing repeated chhurri blows at the deceased; such assertion of the complainant in the F.I.R. is fully corroborated from the medical report and the deposition of PW-2 Dr. Khalid Mehmood; the recovery of crime weapon "chhurri" has been made on the pointation of the appellant on the very day of his arrest, which, as per report of Serologist was found stained with human blood, and all these facts taken together, coupled with the testimony of two eye-witnesses of the occurrence have fully proved the case of prosecution against the appellant. Regarding recovery memo. Ex.PG, he also made reference to the deposition of PW-3 (Lashkar Ali), who was one of the mashirs of recovery, to show that his statement on oath about the manner and circumstances, in which the appellant led to the recovery of crime weapon, has gone un-shattered in cross-examination, and thus, it cannot be said that the recovery of crime weapon was foisted upon the appellant. More so, when he was also an independent witness, having no grudge to depose falsely against appellant.
12. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me by learned counsel, as noted above, and minutely perused the case record, particularly, the deposition of PWs-4 & 5, who claimed themselves to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Some of the salient features of this case, material for deciding the fate of this appeal are as under:--
(a) The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by complainant Tanvir Abbas, who is son of the deceased, within 1« hour of the occurrence, as firstly he has rushed his seriously injured father to the hospital. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any delay on his part in the lodging of F.I.R.
(b) The appellant is the only nominated accused of the crime and there seems to be no iota of justification for his false implication in the crime, thereby letting off the actual culprit.
(c) The occurrence had taken place in broad day light, and appellant was already known to the complainant therefore, the possibility of wrong identification is ruled out.
(d) The incident, had taken place at a public place, opposite the shop of Mughal Tent Service Beriwala Chowk on the next day of Eid. The manner of occurrence goes to show that the appellant armed with chhurri having sharp blade of 9"x1«" was waiting outside the said shop for the deceased Faqir Muhammad to come out and the moment he came out, the appellant caused repeated chhurri blows at him.
(e) The occurrence was initially witnessed by PW-5 Muhammad Afzaal, while the complainant/PW-4 Tanvir Abbas alongwith Irfan Ahmad reached at the place of occurrence on motorcycle, when some injuries were already inflicted upon the body of deceased Faqir Muhammad, and he had fallen down on the ground. To this effect PW.5 Muhammad Afzaal had drawn attention of the complainant, who had also simultaneously seen the occurrence at that time from a distance of about fifty five feet from the spot when further injuries were being inflected by the appellant at the body of Faqir Muhammad (deceased).
(f) The house of PW-4 Tanvir Abbas was situated only about two furlongs away from the occurrence, thus, his presence/arrival there at the time of occurrence was quite normal/natural and he cannot be termed as chance witness of the occurrence.
13. Keeping in view the above salient features of this case, I have carefully gone through the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, which shows that PW-1 Abdul Ghafoor was the Draftsman, who had visited the place of occurrence on the next day as per instructions of Investigating Officer and prepared rough notes for the purpose of drawing the site-plan Ex.PA/1. PW-2 Dr. Khalid Mehmood was the Doctor, who has carried out postmortem of the Faqir Muhammad (deceased) and confirmed the fact of his un-natural death by way of sustaining following anti-mortem injuries on his body, caused by some sharp edged weapon:--
1. External injuries. Multiple stab wound all around the Umbilicus.
2. Two stab wound in lower central chest.
3. Two stab wounds on the back of chest one on the left side and other on the right side.
4. Two stab wounds on the front of left thigh.
5. One stab wound on the back of right knee.
Underdisection. Injury No. 3 damaged heart from the back and Injury No. 5 damaged blood vessels i.e. poplitial artry and veins. Rest all injuries were muscle deep. In the throx chest was damaged, plora damaged, pericardium and heart damaged, blood vessels were damaged.
In the abdomen walls damaged, peritoneum damages, diaphragm damaged, stomach was full of digested food and urunary bladder was full of urine."
14. PW-3 Lashkar Ali, was the mushir of collection of blood stained earth from the place of occurrence Ex.PF and also mushir about the recovery of crime weapon "chhurri" Ex.PG on the pointation of the appellant. No where it has come on record that he was, in any manner, related to the complainant party, thus, it cannot be presumed that he was not an independent witness about the recovery of blood stained earth and the crime weapon.
15. PW-4 Tanvir Abbas was eye-witness of the occurrence, who has deposed in detail about the manner of occurrence, which resulted in the brutal murder of his father Faqir Muhammad, aged 60/61 years, at the hands of appellant. This witness specifically deposed as under:--
"That 4« months earlier I was going to Railway Road from Goal Chaker while boarding on a motor cycle alongwith Irfan Ahmad who was on the rear seat. On reaching at Berriwala Chowk I stopped my motor cycle near to Afzal PW, where I saw my father Faqir Muhammad lying on the ground just near the Mughal Tent Services and accused Nadeem present in Court was giving chhurri blows on his person. My father was changing the side while in lying condition, and accused was raising lalkara. As we proceeded towards him he made his escape good by pointing out the chhurri towards us. Accused had given many chhurri blows on the person of my father. Besides me so many other people gathered thereon. We boarded my father on motor cycle Riksha for shifting him to hospital, but on the way he succumbed to the injuries. Irfan Ahmad PW was also with me at that time."
16. PW-5 Muhammad Afzaal was the other eye-witness of the occurrence, who was already present at a distance of about fifty five feet from the place of occurrence and has seen the whole incident from the very beginning and had also drawn the attention of PW-4 Tanvir Abbas, on his arrival at the spot on motorcycle with Irfan Ahmad, when his father has already fallen on the ground after sustaining initial chhurri blows on his body. He is an independent witness of occurrence, and deposed as under:--
"That on 24.2.2002 on the day of Turu in between
17. PW-6 Zulfiqar Ali Kamran was the other son of Faqir Muhammad deceased, who had identified the dead body of deceased Faqir Hussain at the time of postmortem. PW-7 Muhammad Younus is HC in the police department, who had taken the sealed parcel of blood stained earth and kept it in the malkhana, and thereafter under the direction of Investigating Officer had taken it and the sealed parcel of recovery of chhurri and handed over both these sealed parcels to Constable Ali Ahmad. PW-8 Ali Ahmad is Police Constable, who later on delivered these two sealed parcels to the Chemical Examiner. PW-9 Ahmad Raza was Police Constable at Police Station City Nankana Sahib, who got conducted the postmortem of deceased Faqir Muhammad and to whom the Medical Officer had handed over the last worn clothes of the deceased. PW-10 Farmaish Ali is the ASI Police, who had received the draft complaint from Ghulam Sarwar, Sub-Inspector through Police Constable Altaf Hussain and entered it in Section 154 Cr.P.C. Book in his own handwriting. PW-11 Ghulam Sarwar is Sub-Inspector/ Investigating Officer, who had recorded the statement of the complainant in writing Ex.PH and had completed other formalities of investigation, while visiting the place of occurrence, as per narration of facts in his deposition.
18. It is pertinent to mention here that the ocular testimony of both the PWs No. 4 & 5, despite lengthy cross-examination, remained consistent and un-shattered in cross-examination. Moreover, looking at the distance from the place of occurrence and where the PW Muhammad Afzaal was standing and PW Tanvir Abbas arrived during such occurrence and the distance of resident of PW-4 Tanvir Abbas from the place of occurrence, it cannot be said that complainant was a chance witness. Apart from it, nothing has come on record to show any ulterior motive on the part of complainant or PW-Muhammad Afzaal for false implication of appellant in the commission of such heinous crime, thereby leaving the actual culprit at large.
19. The cumulative affect of above discussed different pieces of evidence brought on record by the prosecution unambiguously lead to the chain of events and the manner of occurrence and leaves no room for doubt to arrive at the conclusion that the prosecution, through the ocular testimony of PWs 4 & 5 and other material pieces of evidence brought on record had fully proved the guilt of the appellant. In addition to it, it is also satisfactorily established from the record that both the eye-witnesses of the occurrence were natural witnesses and in such circumstances, when PW-5 was an independent witness while PW-4, though not independent, being son of the deceased Fakir Muhammad, but an eye-witnesses of the occurrence, therefore, their evidence cannot be rejected for any fanciful reason. Similarly, non-examination of third case of prosecution, as it was the sole prerogative of the prosecution to examine any number of witnesses, it deemed fit. Even otherwise, in the present days scenario, mere non-appearance of an eye-witness would not justify adverse inference to the case of prosecution on that account. More so, as it is well settled principle of law in criminal dispensation of justice that it is the quality of evidence and not its quantity which matters more. It is also equally important to mention here that mere absence of motive or weakness of the motive attributed to an accused will not, in any manner, adversely effect the case of prosecution, as undoubtedly motive is a thing which in many of the cases remain shrouded in mystery, as it is only in the mind of the accused, who commits crime for that reason.
20. From the perusal of judgments of the trial Court as well as the learned Division Bench of the High Court, who heard the appeal, it is evident that both the Courts below have passed their respective judgments with full application of minds, keeping in view the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant during his arguments has used stock phrases in support of the case of appellant, but he has not been able to pinpoint any material lacuna in the case of prosecution, particularly, in the ocular testimony of PWs 4 & 5, which not only remained consistent, but also un-shattered in the cross-examination, and thus, was an important contributing factor for concurrently awarding conviction and death sentence to the appellant. I am fully satisfied that such conclusion recorded by the two Courts, being based on proper appreciation of evidence calls for no interference by this Court.
21. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Bench:
By majority of two to one, the impugned judgment dated 20.5.2008 of the Lahore High Court,
(A.A.) Appeal allowed.
0 Comments