1969 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑

The petitioner was convicted under section 302, P. P. C. and sentenced to transportation for life by the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. On appeal a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, confirmed the conviction and sentenced of the petitioner. The prosecution case is that on the 21st December 1965, Zulfiqar Hussain, the deceased, was standing in an open strip of land at about 11‑30 a.m., Nazir (acquitted) came there and caught hold of him by his shirt collar. Shortly thereafter the petitioner and Muhammad Saeed (acquitted) also came. The petitioner was armed with a pistol. Muhammad Saeed incited Maqsood Elahi to shoot at the deceased, whereupon the latter fired a shot which hit the deceased on the neck. The deceased fell down Maqsood Elahi then fired three more shots in the air and then all the three left. The motive for the assault is said to be that on the information furnished by the deceased the police had recovered an unlicensed revolver from the possession of Muhammad Saeed. The prosecution in support of their ease relied on ocular evidence furnished by Gul Muhammad P. W. 17, Ali Asghar P. W. 18 and Baqir Hussain Shah P. W. 19, and two dying declarations of the deceased both of which were recorded at the Civil Hospital where the deceased was taken after he had been injured. Reliance was also placed upon the evidence of recovery of an unlicensed revolver from the possession of Maqsood Elahi. The learned Sessions Judge did not rely on the dying declara tions as well as on the evidence of recovery. The learned Sessions Judge also did not accept the evidence of Ali Asghar P. W.

18. He relied on the evidence of other two eye‑witnesses and convicted the petitioner only. On appeal, the learned Judges of the High Court, however, thought that these was no reason for rejecting the dying declara tions one of which was recorded by Khurshid Ahmad, A. S. I., between 12‑20 and 1‑15 p.m. and another by Mr. Abdur Rauf Khan, Magistrate, on the same date. They agreed with the learned Sessions Judge that the testimony of Ali Asghar P. W. could not be relied upon. According to them, however, the other two eye‑witnesses correctly narrated the incident and they had witnessed the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Judges of the High Court in accepting the dying declarations‑of the deceased did not take into account the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge. We are unable to accept this contention as we find that the entire evidence in connection with the dying declarations has been discussed in the judgment of the High Court. It is then contended that the statement of the doctor recorded in the committing Court and transferred to the file to the Sessions Judge under section 509, Cr. P. C. could not be made use of to find that the doctor was all throughout present when the dying declarations were recorded. This aspect of the case does not affect the finding of the learned Judges who have held that these declarations are intrinsically true and the dying man did not exaggerate the incident nor had roped in a large number of persons. Both the Courts have accepted the evidence of Gul Muhammad and Baqir Hussain Shah P. Ws. The points raise by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to appreciation of evidence. We therefore find no reasons to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.