1968 P Cr (PLP)

S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The petitioner Obhayo was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the trial Judge. On appeal and reference, the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, upheld the conviction and confirmed the sentence. He now seeks special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court. The prosecution case was that the petitioner who was a hari of Wadero Shahmir Khan Rahu, killed the latter's Kamdar, Abdul Ghafoor while he was busy in getting the picked cotton of the haris weighed and entering into an account book on the 19th October 1965 at about 7.30 p .m. The petitioner had also brought his picked cotton to be weighed at the spot but suddenly went forward with a hatchet and attacked Abdul Ghafoor. Those present challenged him but he ran away leaving the hatchet embedded in one of the injuries on the body of Abdul Ghafoor. When the witnesses returned after a short chase of the accused, which proved abortive, they found that Abdul Ghafoor had expired. The hatchet was removed from the body and Khamiso was sent to report the occurrence to Shahmir Khan at village Moro. Shahmir Khan arrived at the spot and he then directed Janan (P. W.) to go and report the incidence at the Police Station which was about 5 miles away. Next morning, at about 5 a.m. the petitioner, was apprehended while sleeping in front of the house of one Soomar. Blood-stained shirt and shalwar were seized from his person by the Investigating Officer and the analysis of the stains estab lished later that they were of human blood. The motive for the crime is said to be drat some three days earlier the petitioner teased Mst. Sanghar, wife of Abdul Ghafoor, while she was picking cotton pods in the field, by throwing stones at her. She objected to the petitioner's conduct and complained to her husband who had an altercation and exchange of abuses with the petitioner. On the 21st October 1965 the petitioner was brought before a Magistrate at hula who recorded his Judicial confession. This confession was retracted from at the trial along with an extra-judicial confession which he is said to have made to his fiend Soomar. The High Court did not rely on the extra-judicial confession or the judicial confession for what appear to be good reasons. They also did not consider the evidence of one Wali Muhammad (P. W. 11) as of any assistance to the prosecution case. This witness had claimed to identify the hatchet that was used to kill the deceased as one belonging to the petitioner. The learned Judges of the High Court were however, impressed by the direct testimony of the; five eyewitnesses in the case and their testimony was accepted as wholly trustworthy. The confirmatory evidence of the presence of human blood-stains on the clothing of the petitioner was accepted as a corroborative circumstances against him. Mr. A. K. Brohi has suggested that the five eye witnesses on whom reliance was placed in the Court below were acting under the influence of Shahmir Khan whose horis they were because of the enmity harboured by Shahmir Khan against the petitioner. In this connection the learned counsel also invited our attention to the statement of Janan the informant, in the First Information Report to the effect that his relations with the petitioners were strained and he was not on visiting terms with him. Janan denied That lie had made this statement to the Police Officer. But even if his statement be regarded with some suspicion on this ground, there is nothing in the statements of Khamiso, Usman, Kemro and Mir the other eye-witnesses, which could shake their credit, They had no direct enmity with the petitioner and the only suggestion of enmity with Shahmir Khan is that the petitioner's brother had a dispute with him over the question of irrigation water. This was denied by Shahmir Khan. The evidence on which the conviction f the petitioner rests having been accepted as reliable by the Courts below, the points urged by Mr. Brohi going as they do to the mete appreciation of that evidence, are not sufficient basis for grant of special leave to appeal. This Court normally does not undertake to reappraise the evidence. In criminal crises unless there has been some transgression of a legal provision or a principal applying to the assessment of evidence, leafing to a failure of justice. No such feature appears in case and the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.