1987 PLP 508 (SCMR)

M.A.Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing: 13th January, 1987. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.‑‑Muhammad Shafique, Muhammad Zahid and Muhammad Ghayyur, brothers inter se were tried for the murder of Arif Beg while he was passing in front of a shop in village Malhar Moghlan at 5‑30 p.m. on 20th of August, 1975, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dhooman, District Jhelum, now District Chakwal. The statement of Sher Afghan (P.W.13), a nephew of the deceased, was recorded at 6‑00 p.m. at Chak Baqar Shah situated near the spot. The other eye‑witness was Sultan Mahmood P.W. 14 a cousin of the mother of the deceased. Both these witnesses had claimed to have seen the incident from their shops situate at different places in the village. The motive for the occurrence seems to be that in the morning hours on that day, fight ensued between Arif Beg, deceased, and his brother Shafqat Beg on the one hand and Muhammad Ghayyur and Muhammad Shafique on the other, and it was said that Arif Beg. deceased, and his brother had given slaps to both of them. Muhammad Ghayyur and Muhammad Shafique thereupon felt insulted and alongwith Muhammad Zahid committed the offence. As to the role attributed to them, the eye‑witnesses stated that one shot each fired by Muhammad Zahid and Muhammad Ghayyur went amiss, but Muhammad Shafique succeeded in causing gunshot injuries to the deceased. who fell down and died. A crime‑empty recovered from the spot failed to match with the guns recovered from Muhammad Shafique or Muhammad Zahid. The case turned on the ocular account furnished by two eye‑witnesses namely Sher Afghan P.W.13 and Sultan Mehmood P.W.14. the trial Court after appraising their testimony in detail reached the conclusion that it was not of a quality to be relied upon for conviction on a capital charge and required corroboration which was wanting in the case. In this connection we were taken through the reasons given by the trial Court and we are wholly in agreement with the assessment of their worth by the trial Court. The conclusion drawn by the trial Court was also in the context that one Major .tan Alam was attempted to be involved after recording the supplementary statement of these witnesses, but he was not challaned. The overall impression of the trial Court seems to be that the witnesses were not able to see the occurrence as in its view there was no reason amongst others that Muhammad Zahid and Muhammad Ghayyur would have missed the target if they were so close to the deceased. The High Court in revision also upheld the assessment of the trial Court and reached the conclusion that as the evidence was not credible, it could not be believed unless corroborated. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to impeach the assessment of the trial Court or the High Court on any cogent ground. After reading the judgments of the Courts below, we find it to be a very fair appraisal based on evidence and augmented by adequate reasons. On this view of the matter, we see no substance in this petition which is dismissed. M .1./ S‑1/S Petition dismissed.