1990 PLP 416 (SCMR)

S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Taj Muhammad petitioner alongwith Aurangzeb, acquitted accused were tried by the learned Court of Session, Attock, for committing the murder of Mumtaz Khan on 20‑fi‑1980 at 9 p.m. at the Hujra of Ghafur, by inflicting him two chhuri blows on the chest of the deceased by the petitioner, whereas his co‑accused Aurangzeb held the deceased in his clasp froth behind. Fateh Khan and Akbar Khan PWs were present and saw the occurrence. The learned trial Judge found Taj Muhammad petitioner guilty of the offence, convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, whereas the case against Aurangzeb was found doubtful. He was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted him from the charge, vide judgment dated 20‑5‑1981. Against his conviction and sentence, Taj Muhammad petitioner riled appeal while the complainant filed criminal revision against the acquittal of Aurangzeb, before the Lahore High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, who heard hoth the matters, dismissed the same vide his judgment dated 13-2‑1989. Hence this petition for leave by the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through impugned findings of the Courts below; we have come to the conclusion that this petition has no merit which needs dismissal forthwith. As the occurrence took place in the Hujra where every person of the locality who used to come I there is known to each other. The eve‑witnesses in this case arc of the same ? locality and in their presence the occurrence took place, therefore, there is no question of mistaken identity of the accused. No previous enmity of these eye witnesses with the accused is' proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the eye‑witnesses account suffers from minor discrepancies. In our view, there may or may not be such discrepancies but it does not mean that it should be sufficient to discard the evidence of these independent and natural witnesses. Taj Muhammad petitioner was attributed two chhuri blows to have inflicted on the chest of the deceased with which he died and the case against him is proved beyond doubt and has rightly been convicted under section 3112, P.P.C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment and the lenient view in awarding the sentence was taken by the Trial Court only because Akhtar Mehmud had no right to go to the house of Taj Muhammad petitioner, who had every right to push him out. The learned High Court in appeal after appraisal of the evidence, rightly not interfered in the finding of the Trial Court. We also do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave. However, benefit under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. is extended to petitioner. M.A.K./T‑50/S Petition dismissed.