1989 SCMR 2035 (PLP)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑Both these petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 385 of 1987 and 392 of 1987 are directed against the same judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3rd November, 1987, whereby appeal of Mushtaq Hussain petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed and the criminal revision of Mst. Rani Bibi complainant‑petitioner against the acquittal of Muhammad Yaqub respondent was dismissed. Thus Criminal Petition No. 385 of 1987 is against the conviction and sentence of Mushtaq Hussain petitioner whereas Criminal Petition No. 392 of 1987 is against the acquittal of Muhammad Yaqub respondent. These connected petitions are being taken up and disposed of together.

2. Briefly the facts are that Mushtaq Hussain and Muhammad Yaqub both were tried for the murder of Muhammad Sharif and vide judgment of the trial Court only Mushtaq Hussain was convicted under section 302 P.P.C. and sentenced to death plus fine. Muhammad Yaqub was acquitted. On appeal the High Court maintained the conviction and sentence of Mushtaq Hussain and dismissed criminal revision against the acquittal of Muhammad Yaqub. Hence the present two petitions. Muhammad Sharif deceased was murdered on 11th January, 1982 within the area of Police Station Lala Musa. His mother Mst. Rani Bibi petitioner lodged the F.I.R. at 1.00 p.m. on the following day. Mushtaq Hussain and Muhammad Yaqub were named as assailants and they were arrested on 15th January, 1982. Only from Mushtaq Hussain was recovered human blood‑stained hatchet. From Muhammad Yaqub was recovered Dang but not blood‑stained. The eye‑witnesses are Mst. Rani Bibi petitioner mother of the deceased and Fazal Ahmed. The deceased had two injuries on his person. The head injury was caused with a heavy sharp‑edged weapon. This injury led to his death and is attributed to Mushtaq Hussain. The other injury on the left leg of the deceased was caused with blunt weapon and is simple in nature. This injury is attributed to Muhammad Yaqub but the doctor's opinion is to the effect that this injury could have been caused by fall and it was for that reason that Muhammad Yaqub was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The motive is that Mst. Rani Bibi petitioner mother of the deceased had advanced a loan of Rs.7,000 to the mother of Mushtaq Hussain. The deceased was attacked in this background.

3. Learned counsel before us for Mushtaq Hussain petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 385 of 1987 attempted to argue that it was an unwitnessed occurrence and that Mst. Rani Bibi petitioner as an eye‑witness was an interested one. Therefore she should have not been relied upon. On the other hand learned counsel for Mst. Rani Bibi petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 392 of 1987 argued that if the eye‑witnesses are relied upon in the case of Mushtaq Hussain, their testimony corroborated by other evidence should have also been considered sufficient to convict Muhammad Yaqub co‑accused. After going through the impugned judgment and hearing learned counsel for both the sides in our view it is not a fit case for interference, as in the circumstances of the case upholding of the conviction as well as sentence of Mushtaq Hussain was quite proper, as was the acquittal of Muhammad Yaqub co‑accused. In that view of ` the matter both the petitions namely Criminal Petitions Nos. 385 of 1987 and 392 of 1987 are dismissed. A.A./M‑1076/S Petitions dismissed.