2002 PLP 1389 (SCMR)

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal sought against the. judgment dated 11‑9‑2001 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby Criminal Appeal No.404 of 1998 filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence of death recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, in a case emanated out of F.I.R. No.305 of 1995 registered on 2‑10‑1995 under sections 302/324/337‑F/34, P.P.C. with Police Station Gaggu, District Vehari, was maintained. The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that Riasat Ali (P.W.8) got recorded aforesaid F.I.R. on 2‑10‑1995 stating that in the morning hours at about 6‑00 a.m. while he was milking his buffalo, he heard noise. He went outside and saw that the petitioner alongwith his co -accused armed with lethal weapons causing injuries to his father Imam Din. The accused caused injuries to Riasat Ali and Muhammad Saleem P.Ws. apart from Shaukat Ali, a passerby. The petitioner fired a shot at the chest of Imam Din with his .12 bore gun who succumbed to the same then and there. After ususal investigation challan against the petitioner and his three co‑accused Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Munir and Muhammad Latif was submitted. Muhammad Munir co‑accused died during the trial. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in order to establish its case. When the petitioner was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. he denied his participation in the offence and stated as under:‑‑ "The complainant party had suspected that we had stolen their bitch and on the night prior to the occurrence Saleem P.W. had come to us to inquire about it. We took an offence of the false allegation and told him strongly that they should not come to our house for this purpose. Saleem threatened us that he would get that bitch under all circumstances. Next morning Imam Din, Riasat Ali arid Saleem alongwith one of their guest came armed to‑our house and called us outside the house and started belabouring my father and my brother Muhammad Latif. I was not present at the spot and was in the bath room. My brother Munir shouted to seek help from me saying that when the enemies would kill them, then you will come out. At this my brother Munir in order to rescue my father and brother and to save himself fired at the opposite‑party." The learned trial Judge after scanning the evidence brought on record acquitted Khushi Muhammad and Muhammad Latif by extending them the benefit of doubt. The present petitioner Muhammad Shafiq was convicted under section 302(a), P.P.C. and was sentenced to death for the Qatl‑i‑Amd of Imam Din. He was also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. for causing injuries to Muhammad Saleem P.W. and was awarded ten years' R.I. He was further convicted under section 337‑F(ii) and (iv), P.P.C. and sentenced to five years' R.I. with a Daman of Rs.30,

000. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.404 of 1998 against his conviction and sentence while the complainant preferred Criminal Appeal No.440 of 1998 against the acquittal of Khushi Muhammad. Murder Reference No.70 of 1999 was sent by the trial Court under section 374, Cr.P.C. for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence imposed upon the petitioner Muhammad Shafiq. A learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissed both the above appeals and confirmed the death sentence of the petitioner. Hence this petition. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and have perused the evidence brought on record carefully with his assistance. We must say at the very outset that the plea of self‑defence is not at all attracted to the facts of the present case. A reading of prosecution evidence in juxtaposition to that of the defence brings us to an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner's side was the aggressor. The site plan demonstrates that the occurrence took place near the cattle‑shed of the deceased which was nearer to the residence of the complainant party. The deceased in this case had suffered as many as 13 injuries on his person. There is no allegation that he caused injury to any person. The F.I.R. in this case is prompt as occurrence took place at 6‑00 a.m. while the F.I.R. with specific role to the petitioner was got recorded before 9‑00 a. m. The complainant Riasat Ali (P.W.8) had reiterated his stance taken in the F.I.R. This stance is corroborated by unimpeachable testimony of Muhammad Saleem (P. W.9) who too was injured during the course of this fatal incident. The recovery of incriminating article substantiated by the report of Forensic Science Laboratory further strengthens the case of the prosecution. It is also to be appreciated that the medical evidence is totally in line with the ocular version, Last but not the least we must observe that the occurrence had been admitted by both the parties. Taking stock of unimpeachable ocular account by the injured witnesses which stands corroborated by the medical evidence and the motive, we are not persuaded to interfere with the determination of the learned Additional Sessions Judge which has been maintained by the learned Division Bench of the High Court. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being without any merit is dismissed and leave refused. N.H.Q./M‑391/S Leave refused.