1987 PLP 826 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents (in both Appeals). Date of hearing: 10th February, 1987. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑By Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 113 of 1985 petitioner Muhammad Javed seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 3‑2‑1985 whereby Criminal Appeal No.356 of 1982 filed by him was dismissed. By Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.119 of 1985 petitioner Muhammad Riaz seeks leave to appeal against the same impugned judgment of the High Court praying for enhancement of sentence awarded to respondent Muhammad Javed from life imprisonment to death. This order shall dispose of both these Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeals.

2. The accused /petitioner was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore for committing the murder of Karamat Ali on 9‑1‑1980 at about 7/8 a.m. in the area of Purani Abadi, village Bhabra, P.S. Ichhra, Lahore, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine per judgment dated 1‑6‑1982 accused /petitioner Muhammad Javed filed an appeal in the Lahore High Court challenging his conviction and a sentence, while complainant Muhammad Riaz preferred criminal revision for enhancement of sentence awarded to appellant Muhammad Javed from life imprisonment to death. The learned High Court Judges dismissed both the appeal and the revision vide the impugned judgment dated 3‑2‑1985.

3. The prosecution case is that some time prior to the occurrence the deceased Karamat Ali and the accused petitioner Muhammad Javed (Cr.P.L.A. 113/85) had a boxing bout in village Bhabra within the limits of Police Station Ichhra, Lahore. As the accused /petitioner lost the game he, therefore, nursed a grudge against the deceased. It is further stated that in the night preceding the day of occurrence the deceased Karamat Ali objected to the loitering of the accused/ petitioner Muhammad Javed and his friends in the street, frequented by the women of that area. This led to an altercation. While leaving the place of incident the accused/ petitioner warned the deceased that he will settle the account with him some time. On the fateful day at about 7/8 a.m. Muhammad Riaz complainant /P. W.1 was present at the shop of Bashir Ahmad, butcher. The deceased also came there to purchase mutton; when suddenly the accused/ petitioner appeared with a dagger in his hand, and after shouting at the deceased, stabbed him and when alarm was raised, he decamped. The deceased succumbed to his injuries.

4. Dr. Muhammad Siddique P. W.9 performed the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Karamat Ali deceased and found six incised wounds and an abrasion on different parts of the body. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage and injuries Nos.l and 2 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

5. At the trial, the prosecution relied upon the evidence as to the motive; ocular testimony; recovery of blood‑stained clothes and dagger; and the medical evidence in support of the ocular testimony which was furnished by Muhammad Riaz P.W.1, maternal‑uncle of the deceased and Muhammad Yasin P.W.6 who is a Mohallahdar and not related to either side.

6. The learned High Court Judges observed that both the eye‑witnesses are truthful and have no motive to denounce the accused/ petitioner as culprit. Their presence on the spot at the relevant time, is also established by the fact that they are residing in the same area where the offence was committed.

7. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case the prosecution version, as given by the two eye‑witnesses Muhammad Riaz P.W.1 and Muhammad Yasin P.W.6, would show that they had not seen the occurrence otherwise they could not remain silent spectators; that they did not make even the slightest effort to rescue the deceased or even to extend some help to curtail or ward off the attack on him.

8. We have gone through the judgments of the two Courts below and find hardly any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment which is well‑reasoned and almost all the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, have been dealt with satisfactorily, leaving no scope for any doubt. We, therefore, refuse to grant leave in Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.113 of 1985. Petition dismissed as being without any merit.

9. In Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.119 of 1985 main ground of attack is that in the circumstances of the case it is evidently a brutal murder and the sentence of life imprisonment, awarded to the accused/ respondent Muhammad Javed by the learned trial Court, is disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime committed by the accused/ respondent and that there is no substance in the observation of the learned High Court Judges that what immediately preceded the occurrence is shrouded in mystery. It was a sudden attack and the prosecution has not taken into confidence with regard to the circumstances resulting in the onslaught.

10. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and we are of the view that the punishment awarded to the accused/petitioner meets the ends of justice and there is no reason to enhance his sentence from life imprisonment to death. Leave refused. Consequently, this petition is also dismissed. M.I./M‑60/S. Petition dismissed