1984 PLP 1526 (SCMR)

M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑ Mr. Waheed‑ud‑Din Virk, who had been the petitioner's counsel, states that as the petitioner has taken away the brief from him, he would seek, permission to withdraw from the case. Permission is granted. The petitioner, who is present in person, has argued the case himself,

2. The petitioner had been convicted by the trial Court under section 304, Part 1, P . P . C for causing the death of Abdur Rehman deceased and sentenced to R.I. for ten years and to a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default in payment thereof, to R.I. for two years, with the direction that the fine, if realized, should be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. On appeal, the learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court altered his conviction from Part I to Part II of section 304 and reduced the sentence to R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,500 or in default in payment thereof to R.I. for one year. Benefit under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was also given to him. Not satisfied, he has moved this Court for leave to appeal.

3. The occurrence followed a dispute over demolition of a wall which had led to quarrel, exchange of abuses and grappling in the course of which the petitioner and his brother had received minor injuries. Although the parties were separated, the petitioner fetched a gun from his house and fired, resulting in injury to Abdur Rehman deceased at his thigh. Rehmat Khan, father of the petitioner, also received injury by a stray pellet. The petitioner escaped but was later arrested from Civil Hospital, Okara, where he had been admitted for his injuries. The deceased, who was removed to hospital, died eleven days later. An empty, which had been recovered from the spot, matched with the petitioner's licensed gun but as the empty had been sent to the forensic Sciences Laboratory on the day following the recovery of the gun and the gun had been sent thereafter, the High Court agreed with the defence plea that it should not be relied upon. However, taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the cases, it found him guilty and punished him as aforesaid.

4. The petitioner has urged that the medical evidence showed the presence of blackening at the site of the injury but the distance ire the site plan is 19 feet, from which distance no blackening could be caused. He has also urged that there was delay and tampering in recording the F.I.R. and that the evidence of recovery having been discarded there was no corroboration available to the eye‑witnesses who being interested persons were not worthy of unstinted reliance. The points raised pertain merely to appreciation of evidence. We are satisfied that the High Court has considered the case of the petitioner in depth before arriving at its conclusion with which no interference is called for. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. S . Q . Petition dismissed.