1985 PLP 1048 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑ This petition for leave to appeal, through Jail, is barred by 5 days but the delay in condoned, in view of the sentence of imprisonment for life recorded against the petitioners to enable examination of the case on merits. The petitioners stand convicted on the charge of murder, which took place on 5‑11‑1977 at 7‑00 a.m. in Chak Sanatta, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, 8 miles away from Police Station Muridke. Umar Farooq Bhatti (P. W. 15), S.H.0., Police Station Muridke, learnt about the said murder when he was busy investigating some other case near the place of the present occurrence. He reached the spot and recorded, the statement of Mst. Manzooran (P.W. 10), unmarried sister of the deceased (Hidayat) at 9‑00 a.m., which constituted the F.I.R. The details of the occurrence as given in the F.I.R. (Exh.P.C./1), are that on the fateful day, the deceased, Hidayat (who is a Hajam by profession) came out of his Haveli and started shaving Muhammad Sadiq (P.W. 11). Mst. Manzooran (P.W. 10) was standing in the door of the Haveli of the deceased at that time. Suddenly, the two petitioners, Muhammad alias Muhammad Ali and Rafique, both real brothers (armed with hatchets), alongwith co‑accused, Hayat, their father (empty handed) and Siddique, yet another brother (also empty handed) came over there. Hayat raised Lalkara that Hidayat should not escape whereupon Siddique grasped Hidayat in his arms while the two petitioners started administering hatchet blows on his head and face. Hidayat fell down on the ground in an injured condition. Mst. Manzooran (P.W. 10) raised alarm which attracted Nazar (P.W. 12) and Asadullah (since dead) to the spot. The accused then fled away and Hidayat succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The motive ascribed by the prosecution but rejected by the learned trial Judge was that the accused persons had raised a wall in front of the Haveli of Hidayat which was demolished by him about a month and a half before the present occurrence. The accused were arrested on 13‑11‑1977. After a week of his arrest, petitioner No.1, Muhammad alias Muhammad Ali, led to the recovery of the hatchet (P‑1) from his grocery shop vide memo. Exh.P.D. The same day, petitioner No.2, Rafique, got recovered the hatchet (P‑2) vide memo. Exh.P.B. The recoveries were attested by Lal Din (P.W. 9), Umar Farooq and Muhammad Ashraf (not produced). Since the hatchets recovered from the petitioners were not found blood‑stained, the said recoveries were not taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge. Autopsy performed by Dr. Manzoor Hussain Kazmi at 10‑50 a.m. on 6‑11‑1977, disclosed as many as five ante‑mortem injuries on the dead body of Hidayat which were declared to have been caused by sharp‑edged weapons like hatchets. Injury No.5 was simple while the other injuries were grievous in nature. In the opinion of the doctor injuries 1 and 2 individually and injuries 1, 2 and 3 collectively, were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Exh.P.A. is the copy of the post‑mortem examination report. The accused when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied having committed the murder of Hidayat (deceased). They admitted the alleged relationship inter se with the deceased but claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the case merely on suspicion and on account of animosity. They added that during the consolidation proceed ings, some land belonging to the complainant party had fallen to their share which was of better quality than the land surrendered by them and for that reason the complainant party had turned hostile towards them. No evidence in support of their defence was produced by them. The ocular account in this case was furnished by Mst. Manzooran (P.W. 10) and Nazar (P.W. 12). Their presence at the spot was not only justified but they were held to be the most natural and truthful witnesses of the occurrence as on the face of the record they had no reason whatsoever against the accused to falsely implicate them on a capital charge of murder. The learned trial Judge thus relying on the testimony of the two eye‑witnesses, Mst. Manzooran (P.W. 10) and Nazar (P.W. 12), which corroborated the medical evidence, found the two petitioners, namely, Muhammad alias Muhammad Ali and Rafique, guilty under section 302/34, P.P.C. and accordingly sentenced each of them imprisonment for life plus fine amounting to Rs. 3,000 to be paid to heirs of the deceased, if recovered, or in default further R.I. for one year vide judgment dated 20‑10‑1979 whereby the case of the other two accused, namely, Hayat and Siddique, was distinguished and they were acquitted of the charge by giving them the benefit of doubt. On appeal, though the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioners, was maintained but they were given the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. in computing the remaining period of their sentence vide impugned judgment,‑dated 1‑8‑1983. The petitioners still feeling dissatisfied have now moved this petition for leave to appeal, through the Jail Authorities. I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below, the grounds of the petition for leave to appeal submitted by the petitioners, Muhammad alias Muhammad Ali and Rafique, and also the relevant portions of the evidence led at the trial and agree with the findings of the two Courts below that the testimony of both the eye‑witnesses, namely, Mst. Manzooran (P.W. 10) and Nazar (P.W. 12), can be safely relied upon as they had no direct enmity with the petitioners to falsely implicate them in this case. The guilt of the petitioners has been satisfactorily established. They have already been dealt with leniently and awarded the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life alongwith the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C., in the matter of computation of the sentence they have yet to undergo. No further interference by this Court appears to be warranted. I would, therefore, dismiss this petition. M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑ I agree. M.I Petition dismissed