1968 SCMR 372 (PLP)

FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-Special leave to appeal is sought by the petitioner Muhammad Rahim against his conviction under section 302 P. P. C. and sentence of death for the murder of one Ali Sher, which have been confirmed by the High Court on appeal and reference. According to the prosecution, at about 7 p. m. on 9-4-65, when Ali Sher, Hadi Bux and Loung were going to the house of one, Chutto, the accused Muhammad Rahim came out of a shop and fired two shots at Ali Sher and the latter fell down on the ground. On hearing report of the shots, Saleh, Ali Muhammad, Chutto and Kalandar Bux, came to the place of occurrence and heard of the incident from Hadi Bux and Loung. On inquiry by Kalandar Bux, the injured Ali Sher who was in his senses, named Rahim as his assailant. The injured was then taken to the Police Station and the S. H. O. after recording his statement sent him to the hospital at Tando Adam where he latter succumbed to his injuries. During investigation, the Police arrested the accused and also seized his licensed gun, one empty cartridge and some live cartridges. His defence was that be had been falsely implicated in this case by his enemy Kalandar Bux. The prosecution case rested on the evidence of two eye witnesses Hadi Bux and Loung and on the two dying declarations. Ballistic expert who was examined by the High Court found that the empty cartridge secured from the accused had been fired from his gun. As the eye-witnesses were related to the deceased the Courts below looked for corroboration of their evidence. They found such corroboration not only from the evidence of the witnesses who came immediately after the occurrence but also from various other circumstances mentioned in the judgment. Furthermore, in view of the evidence of the doctors that Ali Sher was conscious when they examined him, the Courts below saw no reason to doubt the dying declarations of the deceased. Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently challenged the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and especially that of Kalandar Bux, on the ground that they were deposing at the instance of Kalandar Bux. He, however, failed to show that Loung was, in any way, under the control of Kalandar Bux, P. W., or that he had any reason to give false evidence in this case. The points raised by the learned Counsel merely go to the appreciation of evidence. The learned Counsel has, however, failed to point out that the view taken by the Courts below, of the evidence against the petitioner was either unreason able or opposed to any principle governing appreciation of evidence. There are no sufficient reasons, therefore, for this Court to enter upon a fresh re-appraisal of the evidence. In our opinion, the conviction of the petitioner is plainly correct and the petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.