1968 P Cr (PLP)

M. Saleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Amjad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Sheikh Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 19th April 1968, SAJJAD AHMAD, J.--This Petition for Special Leave to Appeal assails the conviction of the petitioners Muhammad Daud and Fazal Haq, under section 302/34, P. P. C. with a sentence of death for the former and of transportation for life, for the latter; as awarded by the trial Judge, and confirmed, Ira appeal and reference, by the High Court of West Pakistan (Peshawar Bench). The charge was that t e petitioners a on the 30th of June 1966, at degarwela in furtherance of their common intention caused the murder of their co-villager Muhammad Sadiq. There is a history of bitter enmity and longstanding blood feud between the families of the deceased and of the petitioners. The occurrence was reported the same evening at 8-15 p.m., at the Hazro Police Station, which is 6 miles away from the scene of the occurrence, by an eye-witness P. W. Muhammad Ashraf brother of the deceased, giving all the relevant details of the crime. He and 3 other rye-witnesses namely Mukhlis, Hussain Khan and Ghafur supported the prosecution case at the trial in full. All of them are undoubtedly relation witnesses, near or remote, but that is no reason for discarding their evidence in the absence of any inherent infirmities or improbabilities in their attachments. As disclosed from his autopsy, the deceased was hit by a number of shots. The large number of empties recovered from the post, some of which according to the Ballistic Expert were found to have been fired from the licensed pistol Exh. 3 of Muhammad Daud petitioner, but not the others, showed that two pistols of different calibre were used, naturally by two different culprits. The unlicensed pistol produced by Fazal Haq petitioner was not connected with any of the empties, which merely indicates that he produced the wrong weapon. Mr. M. Saleem, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued, by reference to Forensic Law by Sir Cerald Burtald that the blackening marks on some of the wounds of the deceased proved that the distance from which the shots were fired on him was less than 12 inches, and therefore, the direct testimony, which put the firing at a distance of about 10 feet should not be believed. The argument which is specious is not at all helpful. Blackening marks are not the same as charring marks, to be a correct determinative of the distance of the fire. In the present case, however, the witnesses had stated that some shots were fired at the deceased from a close range and the others from a distance while the accused were on the retreat. The evidence in the case, bath direct and circumstantial, on which the petitioners conviction has proceeded has received a proper appraisement from the Courts below, which does not warrant any interference by us. We dismiss s the Petition. Leave refused.