1968S3188 (PLP)

Mahmood Ali Kasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Sardar M. Ibrahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Masood Akhtar Sheikh, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd May 1968. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The petitioner has been con victed and sentenced to transportation for life under section 302, P. P. C. for the murder of his sister Mst. Manzur Begum and her husband Shabbir Ahmad, deceased. About two months prior to the occurrence Mst. Manzur Begum had married Shabbir Ahmad, deceased, against the wishes of her parents which motivated the petitioner to kill both of them. Direct evidence of the crime was furnished by Ali Ahmad, P. W. 12, brother of Shabbir Ahmad, deceased, and Mst. Nasreen, P. W. 13, daughter of Shabbir Ahmad, deceased, by a former wife, who were asleep with the two deceased in the courtyard of the house which adjoins the house of the petitioner Muhammad Ashiq (P.W. 14) and Muhammad Alam (P. W. 15), Mehndi Khan (P. W. 10) and Bashir (P. W. 11) who were awakened by the out‑cries of the deceased saw her brother and Saleem leaving the scene of crime carrying a toka and a gun respectively, while Muhammad Ashiq (P. W. 14) and Muhammad Alam (P. W. 15) saw the petitioner and the acquitted accused leaving their haveli shortly after the occurrence carrying with them different arms. During the course of investigation the petitioner made a judicial confession and led to the recovery of a toka which on examination was found to be stained with human blood. During the trial the petitioner resiled from h6 judicial confession, but in view of the confirmity evidence furnished by the blood‑stained toka and the evidence of Msl. Nasreen, the Courts below accepted the confession as true. In support of the petition for leave to appeal Mr. Mahmood Ali relied on certain confessions made by Muhammad Alam, the recovery witness, which according, to him falsified the confession on material points. On examining the statement of Muhammad Alam we are inclined to believe that he deliberately tried to make departures from the prosecution case in order to accom modate the defence. No reliance could, therefore, be placed on his testimony. In the circumstances we find no ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and refuse leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.