1988 PLP 1208 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the five petitioners and is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 19th July, 1986. Briefly the facts are that the present petitioners alongwith five co‑accused were tried for offences under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. and vide judgment dated 11th December, 1984 of the Sessions Judge Faisalabad they were convicted and sentenced as follows: The five petitioners were convicted under section 302/149, P.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine. They all were also convicted under section 148, P.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to two years' R.I. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Their five co‑accused were acquitted. On appeal the Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissed the same maintaining the convictions as well as sentences awarded to the present petitioners. The deceased in this case is Lal. The occurrence took place on 14th March, 1982 in the fields of Chak No.619/RB in District Faisalabad. FIR was lodged on the same day after an hour by Jamal PW brother of the deceased. The motive for crime is that 9/10 months before the present occurrence Yousuf son of Mehram petitioner was murdered and a case was registered against the deceased and others. However, the deceased was declared innocent in the course of investigation, and his two co‑accused were challaned. It is in this background that the petitioners who are closely related to each other had attacked the deceased and murdered him. The trial Court relied upon the motive although the High Court did not specifically refer to it. There are two eye‑witnesses of the occurrence produced in this case, namely, Jamal PW who is real brother of the deceased and Ahmad PW who is Khalu of the deceased. The other stated eye‑witnesses were not produced. There is also evidence on record of C.W.2 namely Zakir. According to the medical evidence the deceased had numerous injuries on his person caused by fire‑arm out of which two were caused with blunt weapon and two with sharp‑edged weapon. Two injuries proved fatal, three were grievous and the rest simple in nature. From the spot were recovered led of bullet and three pellets, .12 bore empty, empty of bullet of rifle and broken piece of butt of gun. At the instance of Alam Sher petitioner was recovered rifle with five live bullets. It matched with the picked up crime empties. At the instance of Mehram petitioner gun was recovered alongwith four live cartridges. This gun also matched with crime empties picked up from the spot. From Murtaza, Sarong, and Anwar son of Agri-petitioners no recovery was effected. According to the prosecution version on the day of occurrence the deceased alongwith the eye‑witnesses .produced was going towards the place where a new tubewell was to be installed. On the way they saw Alam Sher and Mehram petitioners coming on horses. Alam Sher petitioner had a rifle while Mehram petitioner had a gun. At the same time Sarang petitioner armed with a gun and Murtaza petitioner armed with a Drant came on horseback from the western side. Anwar son of Agri petitioner got up from the standing wheat crop and raised a Lalkara that they had come to avenge the murder of Yousuf. He fired first shot through his gun which hit the deceased. Then the other four got down from their horses. The second shot was fired by Sarang petitioner which also hit the deceased. Then the third shot fired by Mehram petitioner likewise hit the deceased. Murtaza petitioner gave a Drant blow to the deceased. The deceased ran to the nearby Jhuggi but fell down there. Mehram petitioner then fired another shot which hit him. Eventually Alam Sher petitioner came near the deceased and fired at him from a close range thus finishing him on the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued before us that in the light of the motive the previous enmity between the parties is established. It is further submitted that ten persons were involved in this case in all, out of which it was alleged that Allah Yar and Anwar son of Masta acquitted co‑accused had conspired with the five petitioners and thus were a betters in the murder of the deceased. So far as Khadim Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Liaqat acquitted co‑accused were concerned, they were stated to have participated in the occurrence by C.W.2. Anyway it is submitted that all these five had been acquitted. It was next argued that the petitioners were inter related and if any one was directly connected with the motive, it was only Mehram petitioner: It is submitted that the ocular testimony was interested and even if one could say that corroboration was forthcoming of their testimony through recoveries, it was only in the case of Alam Sher and Mehram petitioners, but there was no corroboration of the ocular testimony in this case so far as Murtaza, Sarang and Anwar son of Agri petitioners were concerned. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners we are of the view that no interference is called for so far as Alam Sher and Mehram petitioners are concerned. Therefore their petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. But we grant leave in the case of Murtaza Sarang and Anwar son of Agri petitioners to consider whether or nod proper corroboration in their case was available so as to bring home d their guilt as envisaged by the well‑established principles of safe administration of criminal justice. M.I. /A‑221/S Order accordingly.