1969 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing : 23rd October 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The three petitioners in this case were tried and convicted under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, but only the petitioner Abdul Rahman was sentenced to death and the others were sentenced to transporta tion for life. The High Court of West Pakistan has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and confirmed the sentence of death in respect of Abdul Rahman. They now seek special leave to appeal to this Court. The motive was a previous incident between the deceased Ahmad Ali and the petitioner Suleman, leading to a quarrel about tine watercourse which the latter wanted to demolish. On this occasion the deceased had given two stick blows to the said petitioner. To avenge this insult, it is said that on the 14th January 1966, at 7‑30 a.m. the petitioner who were awaiting in ambush in a sugar‑cane field, fell upon the deceased and his two companions when they were returning from their lands. The occurrence which was a day‑light occurrence, was witnessed by Abdul Jabbar and Jafar Ali, the two companions of the deceased and one Muhammad Ramzan. The deceased was married to a sister of the petitioner Suleman who claimed at the trial that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of the witnesses Abdul Jabbar and Ramzan, an uncle of Abdul Jabbar due to a section 326 case started against them earlier. The murder of Ahmad Ali, it was alleged, by the defence, was commit ted by one Noora Kumhar and his son, because, the deceased had abducted the wife of Noora Kumhar some 5 or 6 months before the occurrence. The learned counsel appearing in support of this petition contends that since all the eye‑witnesses in this case are close relations of the deceased, namely, an uncle, and brothers, their evidence should not have been relied upon because the First Information Report in this case was not lodged until 5 P.M. It appears that since the deceased had been given numerous injuries, he was first carried to the hospital. The Medical Officer Incharge of the hospital immediately sent a Rukka (Exh. P. B.) to the Police and later on again when the deceased expired at about 10‑55 a.m., another Fukka was sent by the same officer to the Station House Officer, Gogera. The relations of the deceased did not go to the Police Station to lodge any First Information Report but they took the dead body for burial to their village Dandanwali and it is only when the Head Constable reached Dandanwali at 3 p.m. that the witness Abdul Jabbar gave a statement on the basis of which a formal F. I. R. was drawn and registered at the Gogera Police Station at 5 p.m. It is true that this conduct on the part of the brothers of the deceased is unusual, for, they should have taken steps to lodge the First Information Report as early as possible but this by itself, cannot be a sufficient ground for discarding their evidence for all the witnesses in this case appear to be related also to the petitioners. The trial Court discarded the evidence of Muhammad Ramzan but relied on the evidence of Abdul Jabbar and Jafar Ali, the brothers of the deceased, as their evidence found corroboration from the evidence of the Medical Officer. The learned counsel has not, even in this Court, been able to point out any serious inconsistency in the evidence of these two witnesses. There is no reason, therefore, why their evidence should not have been relied upon. It is also contended that the motive in this case was not sufficient but in view of the direct evidence the question of motive hardly arises. All the questions raised by the learned counsel in support of this petition go merely to the appreciation of evidence which is not as a rule, undertaken by this Court unless some serious disregard of a fundamental principle or rule relating to the appreciation of the evidence has occurred. No such defect has been pointed out to us. In these circumstances, we do not consider it to be a fit case for re‑appraisal of evidence. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.