Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 448 and Murder Reference No. 151 of 1978, decided on 16th October, 1979.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑---

----S. 302/34‑Evidence, evaluation of‑Presence ‑of injured eye. witness at place of occurrence established and his evidence reliable‑Accused apprehended immediately after occurrence by police officials and their evidence suffering from no infirmity- Recovery of crime weapon established and prosecution evidence supported by medical evidence and motive of crime‑Being a broad daylight incident, possibility of false involvement of accused, ruled out‑Accused, joining together in commission of crime coming armed with deadly weapons with a definite design to kill‑Conviction maintained, in circumstances.‑[Evidence].

Bahar v. The Crown P L D 1954 F C 77 ; Hidayetullah and another v. The State P L D 1971 Kar. 871 and Shamsher and another v. The State etc. 1973 S C M R 69 ref.

(b) Criminal trial‑---

----Witness, interested‑Mere fact of witness being related to victim, held, no ground for discarding his testimony if otherwise his presence at spilt established and his evidence corroborated by other independent evidence.‑[Witness].

(c) Penal Code (XLV. of 1860)‑‑---

---‑S. 34‑Principle‑.Section 34, held, ‑simply recognizes a nom monsense principle that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just same as if each one of them had done lit individually.‑{Common intention].

(d) Penal Cede (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 34‑Operation of‑. Section 34 operates only when criminal act done by an individual in furtherance of common intention found as a fact‑Conditions requisite for applicability of section accused's presence at scene of occurrences; (ii) actual participation, and (iii) pre-concert or pre-arranged plan. [Common intention].

(e) Penal code (XLV of 1860)‑--

----S. 34‑Common intention‑Proof‑Simplest method to prove common intention : direct evidence of conspiracy‑Failing such evidence resort to other circumstances evidencing community of interest‑Proof of circumstances necessarily leading to inference or incriminatory facts however to be in compatible with innocence of accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis.‑[Common intention].

(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑---

--‑‑S. 302‑Sentence ‑ Mitigation‑Accused acting in pre‑concert, fir ing at deceased, chasing him, apprehended by police and disarm ed‑Accused even attempting to fire on police party in a bid to finish deceased‑Accused committing heinous crime within premises of Court, a sanctuary of justice‑Justification for award ing lesser penalty on ground of age in view of special circumstances of case coupled with fact of gruesome broadday murder in premises of Court, held, not available‑Death sentence, confirmed in circumstances.‑[Sentence].

Mohammed Sharif v. Muhammad Javed alias Jeda Tedi and 5 others PLD1976SC452ref.

Amjad Ahad Sheikh for Appellants.

A. R. Shabab Mufti for A.‑G. for the State.

Dates of hearing : 15th and 16th. October, 1979.

JUDGEMENT

MUHAMMAD SARWAR, J.

‑Khadim Hussain son of Fateh Muhammad raged. 22 years) and Rehmat Ali son of Fazal Din (aged 20 years) were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, for the murder of Shahmad son of Sardar and for attempting at the life of Barkat Ali. By his judgment dated 4‑5‑1978, both the appellants have been convicted under section 302/34, P. P. C. and sentenced to death and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each in default of payment of fine to undergo six months' R. 1. each. They have also been convicted under section 307/34, P. P. C. and sentenced to ten years' R. 1. each and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default of payment whereof, to further undergo three months' R. I. each. If the death is not confirmed, the sentence if awarded under section 302/34, P. P. C., shall run concurrently with the one under section 307/34, P. P. C. The amount of entire fine, if realised, shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544‑A, Cr. P. C. The convicts have filed Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 1978 while the reference made by the learned trial Judge under section 374, Cr. P. C. for confirmation of the sentence of death is also before us by means of Murder Reference No. 151 of 1978. We propose to dispose of both these matters together by this judg ment..

2. Shahmad was talon to hospital by Bhoht Salar Butt (p. W. 3) and died later on at 1130 a. m. on 28‑2.74. The death was certified by the Casualty Medical Officer, Mayo Hospital, Lahore by Exh. DE dated Z8.2‑78 and the factum of death has also been recorded by the Police in Exh. PU. report No. 10 is the roznamcha waqiati dated 28‑2‑74.

3. The occurrence in this case took place on 28‑2‑74 at 10‑30 a.m. at the seat of Ch. Abdul Majid Bajwa, Advocate, within the premises of District Courts, Lahore, at a distance of half a mile from Police Station New Anarkali. Barkat Ali (P. W. IS) made a statement IExh. PM/ 1) before Muhammad Akram, S. I. (P. W. 17) who recorded the same at 10‑50 a.m. in the District Courts where he had gone on the receipt of information about the occurrence. Formal F. I. R. (Exh. Ph.1; was recorded on the same day at 10‑58 a.m. by Fazal Karim, S.I. (P. W. 11).

4. The brief facts and the motive, according to the F. I. R., are that on 9‑2‑1973, Fateh Muhammad father of Khadim Hussain appellant was murdered in which Barkat Al's (P. W. 15), the informant, Asghar Ali and Muhammad Aslaat his sons, Muhammad Anwar sore of Natha, Muhammad Yousaf son of Barkat Ali, Mubarak son of Umar Din, Niamat son of Noor and Ashraf alias Kalu son of Kakim were challaned. About two months ago, Barkat Ali P. W. was released on bail by the Lahore High Court, which was resented and was not liked by the sons of Fateh Muhammad deceased, particularly, Khadim Hussain, etc., who were in search of an opportunity to avenge the same. On the day of the occurrence, Barkat Ali (P. W. 15) was to appear as an accused in the above‑mentioned murder case and for that reason, he alongwith Shahmad son of Sardar (deceased) brother of his son‑in‑law. Muhammad Anwar son of Umar Din (P. W. 14) and Sadar Din alias Sadra son of Fateh Muhammad (P. W. 16) came to attend the Court of Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz Joya, Magistrate Ist Class,. and were waiting for the call at the seat of Ch. Abdul Majid Bajwa, Advocate. Barkat and Shahmad were sitting together on one bench while Muhammad Anwar and Sadar Din were sitting together on another bench. At about 10‑30 a.m., Khadim son of Fateh Muhammad and Rehmat son of Fazal Din appellants came there armed with pistols. Rehmat fired at Barkat Ali P. W. and Khadim fired at Shahmad in order to avenge the murder of father of Khadim appellant. Barkat P. W. luckily escap ed but Shahmad was injured. Barkat and Shahmad started running. Both the appellants chased them. Shahmad fell down in the way and Barkat P. W. reached in front of the Court of A. D. C. (G). In the meanwhile, Gut Faraz, Head Constable (P. W. 4) who was on duty in the District Courts caught hold of Rehmat m his japha. Rehmat appellant exhorted Khadim appellant to fire at the police official. He was just to fire when Mania Bakhsh .and Asghar All Constables who were also present at the spot caught bold of Khadim appellant. Both the appellants were disarmed and pistols were snatched from them. When Barkat P. W. returned to see Shahmad, he had already been taken to hospital.

5. On 28‑2‑74 at 4‑00 p in., Dr. Shabir Ali, Superintendent Dis pensary, Mayo Hospital (P. W 12) conducted the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Shahmad and found the following injuries :‑

(1) Abrasion in 2‑1/2" x 3/4" on the left forehead.

(2) Abrasion 3/4" x 1 /2" otter to the left eye.

(3) Abrasion in area 2" x. 2" over, the nose.

(4) Abrasion 1" x 1/2", on the right upper limb. .

(5) Abrasion 3/4" x 1/2", 1/3" x 1/3" oat the front of the right and left knees respectively.

(6) Nine fire‑arms wounds of entry in area 5 " x 4 " with a central abrasion 2" x 1" back upper half lateral part of the right chest, The wounds were circular with inverted margins. All were going deep and measured 1/2" x 1/3" to 1/3" x 1/3".

On opening .the chest fourth to ninth ribs posteriorly and the fifth rib anteriorly on the right side were found fractured against injury No. 6. The pleura was found punctured against injury No. 6. The right lung was found shattered against injury No. 6. In the opinion of the doctor, injury No. 6, inflicted by fire‑arm was sufficient to cause death in the 'ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was haemorrhage and shock. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was few minutes ,and between death and post‑mortem within 12 hours: Five pellets recovered from the front of right chest wall were handed over to the police.

On the same day at 3‑20 p.m., this witness had medically examined Barkat Ali P.W. and found a contusion 1‑1/4" x 1" on the back of the left shoulder. The injury was simple caused by some blunt weapon with in probable duration of 12 hours.

6. The recoveries which are important for the purpose of this case aye as follows :‑

(i) ‑12 bore pistol (P5), containing live cartridge (P18) was snatched from Rehmat appellant by Gul Faraz Head Constable (P. W. 4) and produced before the Police, vide memo. Exh. PB dated 28‑2‑74, attested by Gul Faraz (P. W. 4), Mehraj Din (P. W: 7), Muhammad Munir (P. W. 8) and Muhammad Akram Khan, S. I. (P. W. 17).

(ii) Another pistol (carbine) (P 6) containing live cartridge (P 17) was snatched from Khadim appellant by Asghar Ali Constable (P. W. 5) and taken into possession by the police vide memo. Exh. PC dated 28‑2‑74, attested by Asghar Ali (P. W. 5), Mehraj Din (P. W. 7), Muhammad Munir (P. W. 8) and Muhammad Akram Khan S. h (P. W. 17).

(iii) Two crime empties P7 (P15) and P8;(P16) were picked up from the place of occurrence near the seat of Ch. Abdul Majid, Bajwa, Advocate, and were , taken into possession by the police vide memo Exh:.PD (PJ) dated 28‑2‑74. The memo. was attest ed by Mehraj Din (P. W. 7), Muhammad Munir (P. W. 8) and Muhammad Akram Khan, S. I. (P. W. 17).

(iv) Live cartridges (P9, P10 and PIO/A) were recovered from the personal search of Rehmat appellant by Muhammad Akram, S: 1. (P. W. 17) and were taken into possession vide memo Exh. PE dated 28‑2‑74, attested by the same witnesses.

(v) Similarly, live cartridges (P11, P12 and P 12/A) were recovered from the person of Khadim appellant by Muhammad Akram, S. 1. (P. W. 17) and were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. PF dated 28‑2‑74, attested by the same witnesses.

(vi) One brown shoe of right foot (P13) was taken into possession from the spot near the seat of Ch. Abdul Majid Bajwa, Advo cate, vide memo. Exh. PH dated 28‑2‑74, attested by the same witnesses.

(vii) Another brown shoe of left foot (P14) was recovered from the person of Rehmat appellant and was taken into posses sion vide memo. Exh. PI dated 28‑2‑74, attested by the same witnesses.

Two empty cartridges (P7/P15 and P8/P16) were sent for the opinion of the Forensic Expert alongwith pistols (PS and P6) recovered from the appellants. According to the report of the Forensic Expert (Exh. PS), ‑12 bore crime empty marked C1 had been fired from ‑12 bore country‑made pistol marked Pi and ‑12 bore crime empty marked C2 had been from .12 bore country‑made shot‑pistol marked P1. Thus, the two crime empties recovered from the spot were found to have been ‑fired from the pistols snatched from the appellants imme diately after the occurrence.

7. Khadim Hussain appellant was apprehended by Gul Faraz (P. W. 4) immediately after the occurrence while he was running after Barkat (P. W. 15) in front of the Court of A. D. C. (G), District Courts, Lahore, and was subsequently put under formal arrest by Muhammad Akram, S. I. (P. W. 17). Rehmat appellant was similarly apprehended by Asghar Ali Constable (P, W. 5) and was formally arrested by Muhammad Akram, S. I. (P. W. 17) on the same day.

Both the appellants, when examined under section 342, Cr. P. C., denied the occurrence and stated that they had been falsely involved in the case due to enmity. No evidence was led in evidence.

8. At the trial, the ocular account of the occurrence has been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of Barkat Ali (P. W. 15), Muhammad Anwar (P. W. 14) and Sadar Din (P. W. 16) who have fully supported the case of the prosecution. Gul Faraz, Head Constable (P. W. 4), Asghar Ali Constable (P. W. 5) and Maula Bakhsh Constable (P. W. 6) are the police officials who were on duty in the premises of the District Courts on the day of the occurrence. They proved the arrest of Rehmat Ali and Khadim Hussain appellants just after the occurrence. Barkat Ali and Shahmad having been fired at, started running to save their lives but they were pursued and chased by the two appellants. Shahmad fell down on the pucca road but the appellants continued chasing Barkat Ali and when they were in front of the office of the A. D. C. (G), Gul Faraz (P. W. 4) apprehended Rehmat appellant. Rehmat at that time exhorted Khadim appellant to fire at Gul Faraz but in the meantime Asghar Ali and Maula Bakhsh Constables apprehended Khadim Hussain and, then both the appellants were deprived of their pistols. The re covery of pistol (P5) alongwith live cartridge (P18) and pistol (P6) containing live cartridge (P17) has been proved by Mehraj Din (P. W. 7), Muhamthad Munir (P. W. 8) and Gul Faraz Head Constable (P. W. 4) apart from Muhammad Akram, S. I. (P. W. 17). The recovery of two crime empties from the spot has been proved by Mehraj Din. (P. W. 7), Muhammad Munir (P. W. 8) and Muhammad Akram S. I. (P. W.17), Simi larly, live cartridges (P9, P10 and Pl0/A) recovered from Rehmat appellant and live catridges (Pll, P12 and P12/A) from Khadim Hussain appellant are proved by the same witnesses. The recovery of brown shoes of Rehmat appellant, one from his person and the other from near the seat of Ch. Abdul Majid JBajwa, Advocate, where the attack was launched on Shahmad deceased and Barkat P. W., has been proved by the same witnesses.

9. With the help of the learned counsel, we have gone through the entire record and the evidence led in the case. Learned counsel has challenged the conviction on the following grounds :‑

(i) The eye‑witness as well as the recovery witnesses were closely related either to Barkat Ali (P. W. 15), or to the deceased add thus they were interested and inimical towards the appellants add therefore, in this case their testimony would require a close scrutiny and corroboration, particularly as to the precise nature of involvement of the appellants and the role played by them during the occurrence. He has further contended that even if the presence and participation of the two appellants had been established, the evidence would require deep and close scrutiny.

(ii) Only a single shot was heard by the witnesses in the pre sent case and, therefore, the case has not been proved and the appellants are entitled to acquittal.

(iii) Both the appellants are entitled to be punished with lesser sentence on the ground that it is not known who injured whom and that even if Khadim Hussain appellant is found to be the person with whose fire Shahmad was killed, the other appellant namely Rehmat would be entitled to lesser punishment.

1. No doubt Barkat Ali (P. W. 15), Muhammad Anwar (P. VV. 14) and Sadar Din (P. W. 16) are relations and there is a long‑standing enmity bet ween the eye‑witnesses and the appellants and their family but the question to be determined in this case is whether these witnesses were actually present at the time and place of occurrence. It is in the evidence and ad mitted by all the parties that on the day of occurrence, i.e., 28‑2‑74, the murder case in which Fateh Muhammad, father of Khadim appellant was killed was fixed before the committing Magistrate for inquiry and Barkat Ali P. W., who had been granted bail by the high Court two months earlier, was to appear as an accused in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz Joya, Magistrate 1st Class. his presence, therefore, is admitted and is quite natural. Muhammad Anwar (P. W. 14) though is a brother‑1 in‑law of Shahmad deceased yet M is brother of Mubarak alias Makha, who is also an accused in the abovementioned murder case. Sadar Din (P. W. 16) although is a relative of Barkat Ali P. W. but it is quite normal that in murder cases accused are accompanied try their friends and relations. It is in the evidence that the counsel of Barkat Ali was not present at his seat and they were waiting for him. So, the presence of all the three witnesses at the spot cannot be doubted. The mere fact that a witness is related to the victim is no ground for discarding his testimony if otherwise his presence at the spot is established and his evidence is corroborated by other independent evidence. In this case, we find that there is overwhelming evidence which corroborates the eye‑witness account given by Barkat Ali, Muhammad Anwar and Sadar Din PWs. It is in the evidence that when Barkat Ali and Shahmad were fired at by the appellants, they ran for their lives but the appellants also gave them a pursuit. Shahmad deceased fell down or the pucca road but the appellants continued to pursue Barkat Ali P. W. and when they reached to front of the Court of the A. D. C. (G), Gul Faraz Head Constable who was on duty caught hold of Rehmat appellant. Not only this, Rehmat appellant exhorted Khadim appellant to fire at Gul Faraz but before he could do that, he was overpowered by Asghar Ali and Maula Bakhsh Cons tables. Thus, both the appellants were apprehended immediately after the occurrence. The testimony of the police witnesses (P. Ws, 4, 5 and 6 is worthy of reliance. They are quite independent and truthful witnesses and nothing has been elicited to dub their evidence. We also find from the evidence that pistol (P5) alongwith . live cartridge P18 and pistol (P6) containing live cartridge (P17) were recoverd from the appellants. The two crime empties recovered from the spot were vide report of the Fire‑arm Expert (Exh. PN), found to have matched with the two pistols. The prosecution evidence is also supported by the medical evidence and the motive which stands admitted. In the circumstances, we have no reason to disbelieve the eye‑witnesses, Barkat Ali (P. W. 15); Muhammad Anwar (P. W. 14) and Sadar Din (P. W. 16).

11. The argument of the learned counsel with regard to the hearing of one shot by the witnesses is not tenable in view of the evidence on the records particularly the recovery of two crime empties (P7/P15 and P8/P16) which were also found to have been fired from pistol (p belonging to Khadim appellant and pistol (P5) belonging to Rehmat appellant, respectively, by the evidence of Muhammad Hanif Naseem Fireams Expert (P. W. 13). The witnesses who beard the bang of a single fire, referred to by the learned counsel, are Bhola Salar Butt (P. W. 3) who. had taken the deceased immediately to the Mayo Hospital in a car and Gul Faraz (P. W. 4), Asghar Ali (P. W. 5) and Maula Bakhsh (P. W. 6), the three police officials. It may be remarked that they are the persons who had not actually seen the firing by the appellants but had only heard the noise of a fire. Since they are not the witnesses of the actual firing, hearing of one shot or two by them is not material. On the other hand, there is evidence of Barkat Ali (P. W, 15), Muhammad Anwar (P. W. 14) and Sadar Din (P. W. 16) who have' definite] stated that two shots were fired in immediate succession and may be their noise was simultaneous. The firing of two shots is proved beyond doubt by the recovery of two empties found at the spot.

Learned counsel has, basing his argument on hearing of one shot by certain witnesses, further contended that there was a possibility of false .involvement of Rehmat appellant. Even he has questioned his participation in the incident. The argument is misconceived. From the evidence it is proved beyond doubt that Rehmat appellant was not an innocent companion of Khadim appellant. He was apprehended immediately while he alongwith Khadim was chasing Barkat P. W, Not only this, when Rehmat was apprehended by Gul Faraz Head Constable (P. W, 41 he exhorted Khadim appellant to fire at the witness. Recovery f crime weapons from their possession and the recovery of crime empties at the spot prove that Rehmat appellant was not only involved but had actually participated in the whole affair. It was a broad daylight murder and there cannot be any possibility of false involvement of either of the two appellants. Learned counsel has also argued that (Khadim's) appellant would have shot at Barkat P. W. who, according to him, was his Khadim's enemy and since Shahmad was killed from the fire of Khadim appellant he contended that Rehmat appel lant was innocent. The question of involvement will be discussed later while considering the quantum of sentence but at the moment it is sufficient to say that both Khadim and Rehmat appellants came armed themselves with deadly weapons at the spot and fired simultaneously at Barkat P. W. and Shahmad deceased and it was definitely a shooting by design. Learned counsel has further argued that since Shahmad had no enmity with the appellants, it is not precisely known what really happened at the spot. This argument is again not tenable. Shahmad was related to Barkat P. W. and had accompanied him to the Court where he had to appear as an accused. It is very clear from the evidence of the prosecution that Khadim appellant fired a shot at Shahmad and Rehmat appellant fired a shot at Barkat P. W. The fire of Khadim hit the deceased but Barkat P. W. luckily escaped. We are, therefore, satisfied that both the appellants participated in the occurrence in the manner as alleged by the prosecution witnesses.

12. The last argument of the learned counsel was that both the appellants are entitled to lesser punishment. Learned counsel has frankly admitted the presence and arrest of the appellants at the spot at the hands of Gulfaraz Head Constable (P. W. 4), Asghar Ali (P. W .5) and Maula Bakhsh (P. W. 6). His argument, however, is that if fatal shot is attributed to Khadim appellant then the other appellant Rehmat would be entitled to lesser penalty. He has further contended that if both the appellants are found to have participated in the killing of the deceased, at the time of the trial one was 22 years of age and she other was 20 years old and on the question of their youth he solicited lesser punishment.

Before entering into discussion on this point, we would, like to consider the question of application of section 34, P. P. C., this case. The trial Court applying the principle of section 34, C. P. C. has held that the appellants "came there holding pistols in heir hands, which leads to an inference that .they came prepared to use diem and they actually used them by firing. Khadim Hussain. accused injured the deceased which proved fatal. Rehmat Ali accused simultaneously fired at Barkat Ali P. W. but he escaped. Their act of firing sufficiently indicated that they had a common intention to kill them. Section 34 of P. P. C. is, therefore, attracted to the case and consequently convicted diem both under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P. P. C. and sentenced to death and ten years' R. I. each respectively. Section 34 simply recognizes a commonsense principle that if two or more persons inten tionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually. The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of an accomplice affords encouragement, pro tection and support to the person actually engaged in the commission of the offence. Section 34 operates only when it is found as a fact That the criminal act done by an individual is in furtherance of the common intention. Section 34 requires two conditions : (i) the accused must be present at the scene of occurrence and this must be coupled with actual participation; and (ii) there must be a pre-concert or prearranged plan. The question is how the common intention is to be determined. The simplest method to prove it is by direct evidence of conspiracy. Failing the first method, resort must be had to other circumstances evidencing community of interest. Proof of circum stances which necessarily lead to inference of the incriminatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and in capable of explanation en any other reasonable hypothesis. In the present case, applying the above principle, we find that both the appellants came armed with dangerous weapons like pistols and in fact they participated actively and both of them fired at Barkat Ali P. W. and Shahmad deceased, as a result whereof Shahmad died while Barkat P.W. escaped luckily. The conduct of the appellants in this case will be relevant. They not only fired in the first instance but when P. W. 15 Barkat Ali‑and Shahmad deceased having received one injury ran for their lives, the two appellants pursued and gave them a chase. When Shahmad fell down on the pucca road, they further continued chasing Barkat Ali (P. W. 15) and were apprehended by three police constables Gul Faraz, Asghar Ali and Maula Bakhsh (P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6) and were disarmed at the time of their apprehension. . It is also relevant to point out that when Gul Faraz, Head Constable (P. W. 4) apprehended Rehmat appellant, the latter exhorted Khadim appellant to fire at Gul Faraz but before he could do that, the other two Constables Asghar Ali and Maula Bakhsh apprehended him and disarmed him.

From the above facts, the inference which can be easily drawn is that both the appellants shared the common intention and that it was a designed and pre‑planned murder. It has been held in Bahar v. The Crown (1973 S C M R 69), Hidayatullah and another v. The State (P L D 1971 Kar. 871) that inference of common intention may be drawn from the conduct of the assailants, their participation in the commission of the crime and from circumstances such as the character of the attack, the nature of injuries inflicted and the nature of the weapon employed. It was held in Shamsher and another v. The State etc (P L D 1954 F C 77):‑

"The existence or formation of a common intention within the meaning of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code is not generally susceptible of direct proof, and has to be inferred from the attendant circumstances of the crime. Common in tention can be formed spontaneously at the spur of the moment. Where, therefore, the evidence was that the accused as well as the absconder fired at the deceased in quick succession, it was held that this showed unmistakably that they were acting in furtherance of their common intention to cause the death of the deceased."

In the light of the above principle enunciated in the afore‑quoted authorities, the application of section 34, P. P. C. is fully attracted to the facts of the present case. The evidence on record has established the participation of the two appellants in the crime and that they acted in pre concert and both joined together in the commission of the murder. It will not be sufficient to say that since Rehmat's fire missed the target, he is not liable for the act of Khadim appellant whose fire was effective and fatal. . Moreover, the conduct of the appellants right from the beginning to the end and the use of deadly weapons and chasing Barkat Ali P. W. who escaped would lead us to the inference that‑ both the appellants are liable under section 34, P. P. C., for the murder of Shahmad and similarly for attempting assault on Barkat Ali (P. W. 15). We find, therefore, that the trial Court has rightly made the appellants liable under section 34, P. P. C.

13. In the circumstances of the present case and in the light of the above discussion qua the complicity of the appellants in the crime, we do not find that they are entitled to any lesser penalty even on, ground of young age. Heinous crime in this case has been committed, within the premises of District Courts, Lahore. The courts are sanctuary of justice and people bring their causes for decision. Barkat Ali P.W. and his companions were to attend a case in which father of Khadim appellant was murdered. The appellants did not await the decision in that case and instead took the law into their own hands and made the premises of the Court a place of personal vendetta. When people come to Courts they must have sense of security and protection and litigants cannot be allowed to turn the Court premises into an altar for man‑slaughter. It has been held in Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Javed alias Jeda Tedi and 5 others (P L D 1976 S C 452) that "once the conviction is recorded under section 302, P. P. C., in a case of premeditated and concerted attack launched with the intention of killing, the invocation of section 34 or 149, P. P. C. does not make the slightest difference amongst the various convicts from whom ordi narily the normal penalty of death shall be exacted and no discrimi nation could justifiably be made on that score in the matter of sentence" In view of the special circumstances of the present case, coupled with the fact that it was a gruesome broad daylight murder committed within the premises of District Courts, we do not find any justification for awarding the lesser penalty to either of the appellants even on ground of age or ineffective firing by Rehmat Ali appellant. Their convictions and sentences are accordingly maintained.

14. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The reference made under section 374, Cr. P. C., for confirmation of sen tences of death in this case is answered in the affirmative.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer