1990 PLP 274 (SCMR)

M. B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l to

3. Qamaruddin Meo and Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State. Date of hearing: 20th August, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The respondents were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, of an offence under section 302, read with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fines. The charge against them was that they had, in furtherance of their common intention, caused the death of one Shaukat Ali as a sequel to a quarrel which took place a fortnight earlier between him and Shafqat Ali respondent at a Pan Shop.

2. According to the prosecution case, on 25‑1‑1984 the deceased was present at his house in Mohallah Farooq Ganj, Sheikhupura. At about mid‑day Zahid Hussain respondent came there and took him away on some pretext to an abandoned Khola at Chowk Phool in Mohallah Qadirabad where he alongwith two other respondents, namely, Shafqat Ali and Muhammad Amir, attacked him with Chhuris. The deceased died at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Rehm Din (P.W. 8), father of the deceased, and two other persons, namely, Muhammad. Yousuf (P.W. 9) and one Muhammad Sharif. The matter was reported to the Police Station City, Sheikhupura, by Rehm Din on the same day at 2‑30 p.m.

3. It was further alleged by the prosecution that the three respondents appeared at the Police Station on the very day of occurrence and voluntarily surrendered themselves. Shafqat Ali and Zahid Hussain, respondents, produced blood‑stained chhuris before the Officer Incharge of the Police Station. The said officer found Shafqat Ali and Muhammad Amir respondents wearing blood stained clothes. He took them into possession.

4. At the trial, the respondents pleaded not guilty and denied that they were responsible for causing the death of the deceased or that they had gone to the Police Station with blood‑stained clothes and chhuris.

5. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses, namely, Rehm Din (P.W. 8) and Muhammad Yousuf (P.W. 9). It sought support for the ocular testimony from the recovery of blood‑stained clothes and blood‑stained Chhuris from the possession of the respondents.

6. The High Court rejected the ocular testimony mainly on the ground that there was no satisfactory explanation for the presence of the eye‑witnesses at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time. Similarly, it disbelieved the evidence relating to the recovery of blood‑stained chhuris and clothes from the possession of the respondents, holding that this part of the prosecution was highly improbable. Accordingly, it set aside the conviction and sentences of the respondents and acquitted them of the charge against them. Rehm Din (P.W. 8) seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the reasons given by the High Court for rejecting the ocular testimony and the recovery evidence are sound. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./R‑130/S Petition dismissed.