1990 PLP 566 (SCMR)

2. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner was that on 21‑11‑1979 at 10‑15 p.m. he had trespassed into the house of Asghar Ali deceased and attacked him with a Chhuri. The alarm raised by the deceased attracted a number of persons who saw the occurrence. The petitioner was overpowered at the spot. The deceased died two days later. The occurrence was reported at Police Station Dera Raheem by the father of the deceased on the following morning at 11 a.m.

3. The deceased was a carpet weaver and had installed a few handlooms. The petitioner was at one time an employee of the deceased. A few months prior to the occurrence, the deceased had terminated his services.

4. Immediately after the occurrence, the deceased was removed to the D.H.Q. Hospital, Sahiwal. He was examined by Dr. Muhammad Ismail who found 5 incised wounds and an abrasion on his person. Two of the incised wounds were located in the chest. Subsequently, his post‑mortem examination revealed that his left pleurae and left lung had been injured.

5. The petitioner did not deny that he was responsible for inflicting the fatal wounds on the deceased. He stated that the deceased owed him a large amount of money running into thousands of rupees by way of arrears of wages. The deceased was holding back his wages on the pretext that he would make arrangement for sending him to Saudi Arabia. At the time of the occurrence he had gone to the deceased to ask for his money. Instead of giving him his money the deceased attacked him with the Chhuri. To defend himself he snatched the Chhuri and attacked the deceased in return. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.

6. At the trial, the prosecution examined two eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. One was the father of the deceased and the other a neighbour. Both supported the case of the prosecution against the petitioner.

7. As the petitioner had not denied that he had caused the fatal wounds to the deceased the only question for consideration in this petition is whether his version is a plausible one. The High Court as well as the trial court have rejected it. According to the post‑mortem examination the deceased was a well‑built person of 23 years of age. 1f the deceased was the first one to attack, it is unlikely that the petitioner would have escaped lightly. At the time of his arrest, the petitioner had three minor injuries on his person. One of them was an incised wound on the outer aspect of his right little ringer. This was most probably received by him when he was inflicting Chhuri blows on the deceased. The occurrence took place at a late hour on the night of 23rd November, 1979, inside the house of the deceased. This could hardly be the time for the petitioner to go to the house of the deceased to demand his money. There is also no evidence apart from the bald assertion of the petitioner himself, that the deceased had owed any money to him. I should, therefore, think that the High Court as well as the trial Court had good grounds for not accepting the defence version. This petition is without any merit and I would refuse to grant leave to the petitioner. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑ I Agree. Leave to appeal is refused. N.H.Q./A‑667/S Leave refused.