2004 PLP 763 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th December, 2002. TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 9-7-2002 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2001 filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, through his judgment dated 20-12-2000 was dismissed. The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that Mst. Sarwar Bibi got recorded F.I.R. No.340 of 1995 on 6-7-1995 at Police Station, Nawan Kot, Lahore against the petitioner and four others under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. for the murder of his son Muzaffar Ahmad. The investigation of the case, according to her, was conducted in a mala fide manner as the investigating agency was implicating one Kaleem Ullah Niazi in the above murder and were not involving the present petitioner and his co-accused therein. Faced with this situation, she filed a private complaint seeking trial of the afore mentioned accused persons. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined 10 witnesses: The learned trial Judge also secured the evidence of 7 court -witnesses. After thrashing the entire evidence, he acquitted the co- accused of the petitioner by extending them the benefit of doubt and convicted the petitioner under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., failing which he was ordered to suffer further six months S.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also given to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred aforementioned criminal appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, assailing the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court, which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge through his judgment dated 9-7-2002, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the entire evidence with his assistance. The ocular account in this case has been narrated in its material particulars by Mst. Sarwar Bibi, the complainant (P.W.3), which has been fully corroborated by Amjad Ali (P.W.4) and Muhammad Javed (P.W.5). The latter witness is totally an independent person. He has got no animus whatsoever against the petitioner to implicate him in an offence entailing capital punishment. The ocular account is also in line with the medical evidence. The learned Single Judge has advanced cogent reasons to sustain the conviction of the petitioner by the trial Court. It would be appropriate at this stage to reproduce his determination in, this regard, which is in the following terms:-- "

15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and record has also been seen. Originally a criminal case was registered against the accused. Result of investigation, however, went against the complainant when police concluded that Kaleem Ullah a resident of Mianwali had actually fired in the course of fight between Javed and his brother Sabir and others on one side, and son of the complainant and others on the other side. The case of the prosecution as revealed at the trial was supported by evidence of motive which was in terms that Sabir brother of Javed had not disbursed the amount received by him as a sub-contractor to other labourers. The ocular account of the incident was furnished by Amjad Ali, P.W.4 and Muhammad Javed, P.W.5. The most damning piece of evidence in armory of prosecution was testimony of Muhammad Javed, P.W.5. He had a shop near the place of occurrence. He was a young person and did not have any relations with the complainant party. He had no enmity with the accused either and in these circumstances his testimony could not be rejected on any count. Testimony of Javed alone is sufficient for recording conviction of the appellant. The testimony of Muhammad Javed coupled with other evidence suffices to establish affirmatively prosecution case against the appellant. " Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any merit and force is hereby dismissed and leave declined. N.H.Q./M-758/S Leave refused.