P L D 1992 Supreme Court 248 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.

Leave to appeal in this case of conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder with life imprisonment was granted to examine the question that the "two eye-witnesses are the sons of the deceased and fortuitously came to the village-on the evening preceding the night when the occurrence took place. The case requires to be examined to determine whether both the eye-witnesses did come to the village on the evening in question or are trumped up witnesses". With the help of the learned counsel for the appellant we have gone through the evidence. It undoubtedly is true that the two sons of the deceased are the eye-witnesses--a third one is brother who was also the complainant, could not examined as he died before the trial. But the two eye-witnesses are also closely related to the appellant. He is their real Khaloo (mother's sister's husband). The dispute was over the demand of the appellant for the hand of the daughter of the deceased for his son who was a minor and that too with idiotic mind. Accordingly, the whole family of the deceased had refused to accede the said demand. The two eye-witnesses and some other members of the family of the deceased were residing on lands in the Province of Sindh, near Shahdadpur while the deceased stayed back in Punjab in District Faisalabad. Undoubtedly the eye-witnesses admitted candidly that they had come on the evening preceding the night of murder and had taken their evening meals in the family in Faisalabad. The same night while they were all asleep and there was light from an electric bulb, the appellant entered the house through the broken parts of the wall of the Haveli. He with a datter blow hit the deceased and ran' away. They both confidently asserted that they woke up on hearing the shriek' of their father and saw the appellant in the electric light. Same was the', position of the deceased complainant. We have carefully examined the depositions of both the eye-witnesses' who are brothers inter-se and sons of the deceased. They both were crossexamined regarding their journey from Sindh to Punjab with reference to their arrival and meals on the way and other matters which could be the subject of cross-examination on an issue like the present one. The statements in? rossexamination are so consistent and convincing that we have been left with no doubt that they both did arrive on the evening preceding the night of the occurrence and were staying in their house when their father was killed. A question arises as to whether, the appellant would have, notwithstanding the fact that the two sons of the deceased had arrived the previous evening, attacked the deceased in his house the same night. It looks unlikely but on deeper scrutiny two circumstances would dispel any doubt in this behalf. One, the arrival of the eye-witnesses was in the evening and it may not have been known to the appellant that they are in the house. Secondly, his own house is not in the vicinity or adjacent to the house of the deceased. He had come from some distance. In order to further satisfy ourselves we took note of the recovery of blood stained datter from the appellant. Thus the testimony of the two eyewitnesses who are also related to the appellant, though they are the sons of the deceased, gets confirmation also by the recovery of the datter. In the light of the foregoing discussion we find no force in this appeal The same, accordingly, is dismissed. M.B.A./M‑1609/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.