2010 SCMR 1047 (PLP)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.

Muhammad Imran alias Pappu son of Rehmat Ali through this jail petition, barred by 46 days, seeks leave to appeal from the judgment dated 16-10-2008 of a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, whereby, the death sentence along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000 awarded to the petitioner under section 302(b), P.P.C. by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide his judgment dated 28-6-2002, was maintained, his appeal dismissed and murder reference answered in affirmative.

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by Lal Din complainant in his F.I.R.; are that on 11-7-1999 at 5-30 p.m., Muhammad Imran alias Pappu was smoking heroine while sitting behind the push-cart of complainant's brother. Khadim Hussain, the son of complainant forbade him as to why was he smoking heroine in the shelter of his uncle's push-cart. A quarrel ensued between then but the complainant intervened and caused separation. Khadim Hussain went to his shop while Imran went to his house.

3. After sometime, while Lal Din, his brother Mukhtar Ahmad and his nephew Muhammad Arshad were talking to each other in the street in front of their house while Khadim Hussain was standing in front of his shop, when in the meanwhile, Imran appeared from the side of his house while armed with a Chhuri. He straightway inflicted Chhuri blow on the front of chest of Khadim Hussain and decamped. All three of them took the injured to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries.

4. It is a case where plausible motive is available. The accused felt insulted and went home nursing the grudge. His intention can well be gathered from the fact that after sometime when he had time to reflect, he came armed with a Chhuri and straightway gave a blow on the vital part of the victim. It is contended that the first part of the transaction is not narrated by Mukhtar Ahmad, the eye-witness and hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the motive could not be proved. We do not agree to the point raised because first part of the transaction had taken place within the view of Lal Din complainant who had mentioned the same in his statement. Mukhtar Ahmad (P.W.3) is silent because the earlier occurrence never took place in his presence. The omission referred to by the learned counsel is, rather natural.

5. The complainant has no enmity whatsoever with Muhammad Imran. So is the case of Mukhtar Ahmad, the brother of Lal Din and hence ocular testimony of both the witnesses is untainted. In the circumstances, it did not need any corroboration yet the prosecution has sought support from a proved plausible motive. The postmortem report further proves the ocular testimony as it is in line therewith. Although not very material in the face of un-blemished ocular testimony, yet further corroboration is sought from the recovery of Chhuri which was found to be stained with human blood. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the petitioner in all respects. The conviction recorded by the two Courts cannot be taken an exception to.

6. Coming to the question of sentence, the learned counsel pointed out that the deceased had forbidden the accused from smoking heroin which annoyed the accused. That, having reacted under the said circumstances, he is not liable to be sentenced to death. We are not convinced by the arguments because, at the first instance, it is not at all plausible to react in the circumstances. Even if it is so taken, the accused never reacted on the spot. He went to his house and had sufficient time to cool down. He did not cool down and returned to the spot while armed with Chhuri. Such killing after the lapse of time was a killing in cold blood and hence he deserves the normal penalty of death. The conviction as well as the sentences are upheld. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused. N.H.Q./M-14/SC Leave refused.