1996SCMR490 (PLP)

M. Zahid Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1994 WALI MUAHMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Mohsinur Rehman, petitioner herein, calls in question the judgment dated 21‑10‑1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby his Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 1987 filed by him against his conviction and sentence under section 302, P.P.C. for causing the murder of Rehmat Ali deceased and sentence of imprisonment plus a fine of Rs.20,000 or default 2 years' R.I., was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case, as disclosed in the promptly lodged F.I.R. on the statement of Bashir Ahmed P.W.5 the son of the deceased, are that he, his mother Mst. Rashida Bibi P.W.6 and sister Mst. Irshad Bibi P.W.7 were present in the lane adjacent to their house while his father Rehmat Ali deceased was present in the shop, part of his residential house, when Mohsinur Rehman accused/petitioner came there at about 10‑30 a.m. and at the bidding of Master Aslam, since acquitted, drew out a dagger from his trouser string and delivered a blow with it hitting to the deceased whereby he fell on the ground and the accused/petitioner made good his escape from the spot. The motive disclosed was that the accused/petitioner developed illicit relation with Mst. Safia, daughter‑in‑law of the deceased, and used to stand in the lane which was resented by the deceased Rehmat Ali. The deceased was taken to the Mayo Hospital but before he could be attended to by the doctor, he breathed his last. The matter was reported by Bashir Ahmed P.W.5 to the police who had arrived there on the receipt of information of the present occurrence. After the necessary investigation in the case, the accused/petitioner alongwith his co‑accused were put on trial before the learned Additional , Sessions Judge, Lahore, who, after framing of the necessary charge‑sheet, recording of evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence statement of the accused under section 342, Cr. P.C., found Master Aslam co‑accused/petitioner guilty for the murder of the deceased convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. and keeping in view his tender-age and having caused a solitary injury to the deceased with no old enmity, took a lenient view and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine a Rs.20,000 or in default 2 years' R.I., half of the fine on recovery to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, vide his judgment dated 29‑1‑1987. The appeal filed by him before the High Court having failed the instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.

3. We have heard Mr.Zahid Abbasi, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the presence of the 'eye‑witnesses, produced in the case, at the spot at the time of occurrence was not natural; that there was material contradictions between their depositions; that the deceased had earlier been operated upon and that his death was the result of rupture of the stitches; that the recovery of blood‑stained Chhuri at the pointation of the petitioner was not independently established: and that the motive advanced has not been proved according to law. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel in the light of the evidence on record but do not find any substance in them. The place of occurrence is a lane adjacent to the house of the complainant party and, as such, the presence of eye witnesses named above, who happened to be the son, widow and daughter of the deceased is natural, particularly when they, even according to the version of defence, accompanied the deceased to the hospital. The recovery of blood stained Chhuri, at the pointation of the accused/petitioner, is proved from the statement of Atif Hayat ASI/P.W.4 Azmat Ullah SI/P.W.10, who were cross-examined but nothing material could be elicited ffom them in favour of the defence. The trial Court and the High Court have believed the recovery of blood‑stained Chhuri for valid reasons as corroborative piece of evidence. Otherwise too, the prosecution witnesses had not motive to falsely, implicate the accused/petitioner for the murder of Rehmat Ali deceased and absolve the real culprit from the offence. The conclusions arrived at by the trial Court as well as the High Court are based on proper appraisal of evidence and finding no misreading or non‑reading of evidence, we are not persuaded to grant leave to appeal.

5. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed and leave to appeal refused H.Q./M‑2223/S Leave refused.