1980 PLP 662 (SCMR)

Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 6th February, 1980. DORAB PATEL, J.‑The petitioner has been sentenced to death under section 302, P. P. C. for the murder of Mst. Sat Bharai by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha. He challenged his conviction in an appeal in the Lahore High Court, which was heard with the reference from the Sessions Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the sentence of death. Hence this petition for leave. The petitioner had made a request to be present at the hearing of his petition, therefore, he was produced before us but he had absolutely nothing to say except that he was innocent and that he wanted justice to be done to his case. We have, therefore, examined the evidence with the assistance of Mr. Kokab, who was appointed by the State to argue the petition on the petitioner's behalf. The prosecution case about the motive for the occurrence was that the petitioner's wife Mst. Saleh Khatun had left the petitioner and was staying with her mother, Mst. Sat Bharai, the deceased. As Mst. Sat Bharai would not return her daughter to the petitioner, according to the prosecution, he took his revenge by murdering her on 27th January, 1976, and the brother and sister of the deceased, Umar Hayat and Mst. Sarwar Khatun gave respectively evidence about this motive, which however was denied by the petitioner in his statement in the Sessions Court. Next in order to prove the occurrence the prosecution examined the sister of the deceased as an eye‑witness and it also relied on the recovery of the weapon (a hatchet), which was proved by the Investigation Officer and by Malik Allah Yar, the local Lam6ardar, who witnessed the recovery. We have examined Mst. Sarwar Khatun's evidence and we are impressed by it. Further, the witness was not cross‑examined on any suggestion of enmity and on the contrary the suggestion on which she was cross‑examined was that the petitioner's wife was carrying on with Mohammad Ashraf, his brother‑in‑law and that on the day of the occur rence the petitioner was provoked by his wife being with his brother‑in- law therefore, he had tried to attack his wife and his brother‑in‑law and as the deceased intervened she met her death accidentally. We have scrutinis ed the evidence with the aid of Mr. Kokab to see whether this suggestion put to Mst. Sarwar Khatun in cross‑examination is supported by any evidence whatsoever. But there is not a shred of evidence in support o this suggestion. On the other hand Mst. Sarwar Khatun's evidence is corroborated by the recovery of the crime weapon (which was proved to be stained with human blood) and as we pointed out one of the recovery witnesses was the local Lambardar, Malik Allah Yar, the witness was not even cross‑examined on any suggestion of enmity and we see no reason to doubt his evidence. In the result the concurrent finding of guilt against the petitioner is supported by evidence and no exception can be taken to the view in the judgment under appeal. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.