1973 PLP 569 (SCMR)

WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑Petitioner Muhammad Aslam was tried along with Muhammad Shafi, Chiragh, Muhammad Ishaque, Mst. Bushra and Mst. Aisha, under sections 302, 148 and 149, P. P. C. for the murder of Mohammad Hanif son of Mohammad Shafi deceased. The learned trial Judge convicted Mohammad Aslam petitioner and Mohammad Ishaque under sections 302, and 34, P. P. C. and acquitted the rest of the accused persons. Mohammad Aslam petitioner was sentenced to death and Mohammad Ishaque to transportation for life. The two accused persons challenged this order in Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 1970. The matter was also considered in Criminal Reference. The Lahore High Court, by judgment dated the 20th November 1972, accepted the appeal of Mohammad Ishaque and confirmed the death sentence of Mohammad Aslam petitioner. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment. The prosecution case is that the occurrence took place at about 2‑00 p.m. on the 16th June 1968 in Village Karolwar, Police Station Manawan, District Lahore. It is alleged that about a year prior to the occurrence, Muhammad Hanif deceased had abducted Mst. Bushra, daughter of Chiragh. She was engaged to Mohammad Aslam, petitioner. Due to the pressure of the bratheri, she was returned to her parents. Ten days later, she was married to Muhammad Aslam petitioner. It is alleged that even after her marriage, whenever she got a chance, Mst. Bushra told the deceased to abduct her again and take her away. But the deceased did not agree to this suggestion. It is alleged that in these circumstances, Mohammad Aslam, Mst. Bushra, her parents as well as her in‑laws, became inimical towards Mohammad Hanif deceased. On the 16th June 1968, the deceased went to the city on his bicycle to purchase a bunyan and foam chappal. At about 2‑00 p.m.., he was returning from the city. When he reached near the house of Mohammad Aslam and Chiragh, who were sitting on the road near the house, they got up. Mohammad Aslam gave a toka blow to the deceased who fell down on receiving it. Thereafter, Mohammad Aslam and Mohammad Ishaque dragged the deceased towards their house. The incident was seen by Mohammad Shafi P.W. 4, father of the deceased, Hassan Din P.W. 2, and Mohammad Yousaf P.W. 3 who were resting on a cot in a nearby garden. Mohammad Shafi tried to help his son, but was prevented to do so as the petitioner and other accused persons shouted a lalkara that he too should be killed. Mohammad Shafi proceeded to Police Station Manawan. He met on the way Ali Naseer, S.I., P.W. 15 and reported the matter to him. The statement, Exh. P.A., was started at 4‑00 p.m. and finished at 4‑15 p.m. The formal report was recorded at 5‑15 p.m. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. It has relied on‑ (i) the evidence of motive, (ii) the ocular evidence, (iii) the evidence of recoveries, and (iv) the medical evidence. The learned trial Court believed the eye‑witnesses, the evidence of motive and recovery and convicted the petitioner and Mohammad Ishaque. Agha Abdul Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the prosecution witnesses are related to each other; that Hassan Din P. W. 2 and Mohammad Yousaf P.W. 3, are chance witnesses as they are residents of different villages. Their explanation that they have come to this village to attend the khatna ceremony of the son of one Hassan Din Jat is not free from doubt. According to him, these witnesses should not be relied upon. The learned Judges of the High Court have observed that "even if the statements of Hassan Din and Mohammad Yousaf were excluded, on the ground that they belonged to another village and, as such, were chance witnesses, this criticism is not available against Muhammad Shafi P. W. 4. " The High Court has also relied on the witnesses of recoveries, namely, Muhammad Ali P.W. 12 and Hassan P.W.

13. They are independent and truthful witnesses. We agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the statement of Muhammad Shafi P.W. 4 corroborated by the recoveries, proved beyond doubt the case against the petitioner. In our opinion, the High Court was perfectly justified in up holding the conviction of the petitioner. No ground has been made out to interfere with the order of the High Court. The petition is dismissed. ?????????? Leave refused.