1984 PLP 1523 (SCMR)

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ This Jail Petition by Muhammad Amin is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 24‑8‑1982, dismissing his appeal in a murder case.

2. Muhammad Amir petitioner was tried for the murder of Khan Muhammad alias Satti. The occurrence took place on 31‑1‑1978 at 8‑45 a.m. at Haji Camp Road, Karachi. The F.I.R. was lodged by Mian Muhammad P.W. 1 (brother of the deceased) at Police Station, Kalakot, Karachi, at 10 a.m. on the same day which was recorded by Hamid Hussain S.H.O.

3. According to the prosecution version the petitioner had borrowed Rs. 300 from the deceased. A day prior to the occurrence he demanded the money from the petitioner who abused him. On the following day at about 8‑45 a.m. the two happened to meet each other in the bazar and there was an exchange of abuses between them over the same issue, when the accused suddenly stabbed the deceased with a knife, causing him injuries on the left side of the chest. The incident was also witnessed by Abdul Ghafoor, Islamuddin, Haji Yaqoob and Soomar. The accused managed to disappear taking away the knife with him. Thereafter Abdul Ghafoor and Islamuddin helped the complainant remove his injured brother to the Civil Hospital. After a shortwhile of their arrival there, the doctor announced that the deceased had expired. The complainant then went to the Police Station Kalakot and lodged the F.I.R. No incriminating recovery was made from the accused‑petitioner and the prosecution case rested merely on the evidence of 4 eye witnesses, namely, Mian Muhammad P.W. 1 (brother of the deceased), Soomar (P.W.2), Abdul Ghafoor (P.W.3) and Haji Yaqoob (P.W.4). The last three eye‑witnesses are not, related to the deceased. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of motive and the medical evidence.

4. The learned trial Court believed the prosecution version. It convicted Muhammad Amir .under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him to death and a fine of Rs. 3,

000. The High Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the sentence of death. He has filed the present petition for leave to appeal which is barred by 137 days. We, however, overlooked the delay and heard the petitioner's counsel on merits.

5. He submitted firstly that the accused‑petitioner had not been properly represented at the trial. He, however, admitted that he was throughout represented by a counsel. The first three eye‑witnesses were cross‑examined by the State counsel who was appointed to defend him and subsequently he engaged his own counsel. It cannot, therefore, be said that he was not properly defended at the trial. The counsel argued secondly that since there was an exchange of abuses between the petitioner and the deceased before the occurrence, he (Amir petitioner) had stabbed the deceased in a fit of anger and that he should, therefore, be treated leniently and awarded the lesser sentence.

6. The argument is fallacious. In fact, it is a gruesome murder wherein the petitioner gave repeated knife blows to the deceased causing incised injuries on the chest, over a very trivial matter. He was, therefore, rightly awarded the major penalty. In view of the above discussion we dismiss the petition. S . Q. Leave refused.