1968 P Cr (PLP)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Murder

Neither plea of alibi nor that of self-defence found sustainable-Special leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court. Pir Masoom Shah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan, Senior Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 29th March 1968. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioner stands convicted under section 302, P. P. C. and sentenced to transportation for life for the murder of his co-villager Tagga Khan by a firearm. The plea of alibi was raised in his defence during the trial, but was rejected as untrue. In the alternative the plea of private defence of property was raised by the counsel on the ground that the occurrence took place in Field No. 597 in which the petitioner was a co-sharer, but the deceased had forcibly entered into its possession and was ploughing it when the occurrence took place. Both the Courts below have overruled the plea on the findings based on the two reports of the Revenue Officers that the occurrence bad taken place in field other than 599 in which the petitioner did not own any share. With the assistance of the learned counsel we have perused the judgment of the High Court and find no reason to differ with the findings that the occurrence did not take place in Field No.

599. In the first instance Farman Ali Shah (P. W. 20) Settlement Naib Tahsildar, accompanied by the Investigating Officer, inspected the spot and with the assistance of the revenue records carried out measurements which revealed that the occurrence had taken place in Khasra Nos. 695 and

697. His report was exhibited during the trial as Exh. P. L./2. Later on under the directions of the Superintendent of Police Mr. Ahsanul Haq (P. W. 21). Revenue Tahsildar, went to the spot ; carried out measurements with reference to the permanent boundary ; and concluded that the scene of occurrence was Khasra Nos. 695, 696, 697 and

710. His report is Exh. P. Z/2. No evidence was led in defence and nothing was brought out in the cross-examination of the two witnesses to cast doubt on the veracity of their reports, except that there was some discrepancy in the time noted in the roznamcha about the departure of P. W. 21 from the Police Station for the place of occurrence. We have considered this aspect of the case that even if the Tahsildar left the Police Station along with the Investigating Officer at 3-30 p.m. he could have spend easily three hours in carrying out measurements before it became dark. The finding by the Courts below that the occurrence had not taken place in Khasra No. 579 was thus borne out by good and cogent evidence and no exception could be taken to it. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Leave refused.