1968 P Cr (PLP)

S. A. RAHMAN, J.-Ranjha and Musa petitioners, were tried along with Muhammad Din, brother of Ranjha, for the murder of Rehmat Ali, a cousin of Ranjha and Muhammad Din. They were convicted by the trial Judge and sentenced to death, Muhammad Din being acquitted. On appeal and reference, the convictions and sentences of the petitioners were maintained intact by the High Court of West Pakistan. This is a petition, on their behalf, for special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court. We have heard Mr. Jamil Hussain Rizvi, on behalf of the petitioners. He points out that the conviction of the petitioners is based on the solitary statement of a single eye-witness, Mst. Waziran, mother of the deceased, the remaining evidence having been rejected as unreliable. He argues that the trial Judge was not willing to place reliance on the testimony of Mst. Waziran, without corroboration, which he found in other evidence rejected by the High Court. The question, however, is whether the conviction of the petitioners could not be based on the testimony of the solitary witness. Now, in the circumstances of this case, it is clear that Mst. Waziran must have witnessed the occurrence as she bore the hall mark of her presence at the time of the occurrence, in the shape of injuries on her person, inflicted by the accused during the same transaction in which her son was killed. The relationship of the petitioners to the deceased is a guarantee of the fact that Mst. Waziran would not bring a false charge again these petitioners without any rhyme or reason. Out of the petitioners, Ranjha was said to be armed with a Gandassa and Musa with a spear. The statement of Mst. Waziran that these two persons were the murderers of her son, is corroborated by the medical evidence that both incised as well as penetrating wounds were found on the person of the deceased. Muhammad Din, the third accused, was acquitted by the trial Judge on the ground that only a dang was assigned to him, whereas no blunt weapon injury was found on the person of the deceased. It may well be doubted whether the acquittal of the third accused, Muhammad Din, was based on proper appreciation of the facts of the case. Mst. Waziran's testi mony was that she arrived on the scene to find Raniha giving Gandassa blows, with Musa standing by with a spear, that she fell on her son to save him and that then she was attacked by the three accused. The medical evidence shows that she' also had blunt weapon injuries on her person, which might have been caused with a dang. The mere fact, therefore, that Muhammad Din has been acquitted, need not lead to the inference that Mst. Waziran was a false witness. The grievance, if any, lay on the side of the accused and not on the side of the deceased or his mother. The deceased had obtained from the Settlement Department, six killas of land, in lieu of the property left by his father in India. Out of this land, he had given for cultivation to Ranjha and Muhammad Din, three killas, which he later took back. The petitioners, apparently, resented this fact and this was the motive for the crime on their part. Mst. Waziran had no enmity with the accused persons and it is not to be believed that she substituted the real culprits with the relatives of her son. without any solid foundation. The murder was committed in day time and there was no question of mistaken identity raised. The defence of the appellants was a denial of the prosecution evidence in this case. No evidence was, however, called in defence to rebut the prosecution case. The convictions of the petitioners were clearly proper and there appears no good ground for interference with their convictions. This was, apparently, a deliberate and pre-planned murder. The learned counsel tried to argue that no fines should have been imposed on the petitioners along with the sentences of death. The sentence of fine, however, is a legal one and this Court, ordinarily, does not interfere with legal sentences. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.