1995 PLP 1163 (SCMR)

3. The prosecution case was that taking advantage of his presence in the neighbourhood, Nazir Ahmad armed with Sota, Tariq Mahmood armed with sickle and Mst. Ghafooran armed with sickle attacked Abdul Aziz and caused him over 20 injuries resulting in his death. Ghulam Sarwar (P.W. 8) lodged the report at 6‑00 p.m. the same day. Recoveries of Sota and sickle were effected from the convicts and the blood‑stained clothes of Nazir convict were also recovered. The explanation given by the convict Nazir Ahmad was as hereunder:‑‑ "It was harvest season. We were cutting the wheat crop of each other. I was cutting wheat crop in the adjoining Killa of Killa No. 15 alongwith other cultivators. My wife Mst. Ghafooran brought meals for me and others at about Zohar time. After we had taken the meals she went back. In the meantime we heard the cries. I went to Killa No.15 and found Mst. Ghafooran was protesting against the advances of Abdul Aziz deceased. I went forward to reprimand him but he gave me Danda blows. In the meantime, the, other harvesters came and they also beat him. My son was not there. Mst. Ghafooran had no weapon in her hand. I went to the police station alongwith Danda where I was detained. Then I came to know that I was implicated in a false case. I was arrested and then my wife and son were also arrested. These clothes were obtained from me at the police station. Danda P.4 is the same which I took to the police station." It was also adopted by Tariq Mahmood convict.

4. The trial Court believed the ocular evidence, found no material to support the defence version, convicted the two male accused (petitioners) and acquitted giving the benefit of doubt to Mst. Ghafooran. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by the High Court.

5. An examination of the material on record shows that the two eye witnesses have accounted for their presence in the neighbourhood where the occurrence took place, that the occurrence had taken place without any premeditation and planning as would appear by weapons used by each of the accused and the injuries appearing on the dead body. The number of injuries also make it clear that it was not the doing of one man. All these factors justify the conviction of the petitioners and the rejection of their defence plea.

6. No legal error or infirmity is found in the appraisal of the evidence another material appearing on the record. Hence no case is made out for leave to appeal and both the petitions merit rejection. SALEEM AKHAR, J.‑‑‑I agree. N.H.Q/N‑417/S Leave refused.