P L D 2006 Supreme Court 163 (PLP)

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.

This Jail Petition is directed against the judgment dated 17-9-2003 passed by learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby Criminal Appeal No.153/92 filed by petitioner Muhammad Ahsan alias Aksan was dismissed and his conviction and sentence to imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.1,00,000 or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two years awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Attock, were maintained.

2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated are that on 29-8-2000 at 8-30 a.m. Muhammad Raffaqat deceased on knowing about the presence of the petitioner inn the Baithak of one Nawab Khan went there along with Raffaqat Zaman and Muhammad Asif. He demanded return of his money, which he owed to him. The petitioner got annoyed and took out Churri from his dub and inflicted Churri blow on his belly, who fell down. The deceased was brought to the Hospital where he succumbed to injury on 22-4-2000.

3. The petitioner was arrested and he led to the recovery of Churri from the Baithak of Aminud Din in village Ghourghushti. He was sent up to face the trial before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Attock, who vide judgment dated 23-1-2002 convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

4. Mr. Sadaqat A. Mirza, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner is absent though called. He was absent on the last date of hearing also. However, we with the assistance of Mr. Dil Muhammad Tarar, appearing on behalf of the State have gone through the record and proceedings of the case and also perused the impugned judgments.

5. The prosecution in order to establish its case has produced ocular testimony of Muhammad Asif (P.W.11) and Muhammad Younas (P.W.12), who deposed that in their presence the petitioner took out Churri from his dub and inflicted Churri blow on the belly of the deceased simply on the demand of return of loan money. Irrespective of the ocular testimony, the incident was reported by deceased Muhammad Rafaqat himself, who while in an injured condition lodged the F.I.R. while giving his statement in writing to Muhammad Aslam, S.-I. who reached the Hospital on receipt of information and nominated the petitioner as accused of the case. The said statement was incorporated into F.I.R. at Police Station Hazro, District Attock under section 324, P.P.C. which was later on converted into section 302, P.P.C. after his death. The said statement has been treated as dying declaration by both the Courts below.

6. We also did not see any reason to disbelieve the statement of deceased, which has rightly been treated as dying declaration. The statement of the deceased is a strong piece of evidence and can be relied upon. There was no reason for the deceased to have substituted the petitioner for someone else .and had allowed the real culprit to make good escape. Ocular testimony has been fully corroborated by the medical evidence furnished by Dr. Muhammad Zafar, M.O. (P.W.4) and it was extensively proved that the deceased was murdered by Churri blow caused by the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of two Courts below. The petition is also barred by time for 140 days for which no plausible explanation has been offered. Consequently leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed on merits as well as on the point of limitation. N.H.Q./M-6/S Leave to appeal refused.