1980 PLP 206 (SCMR)

G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.‑Petitioner Hamidullah was tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chitral, under section 302, P. P. C. for the murder of Musharaf Khan, District Engineer, Chitral. and sentenced to death and a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default R. I. for six months. His appeal in the High Court having failed and the death sentence awarded to him confirmed, Hamidullah has come tip to this Court praying for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. The case of the prosecution in the trial Court was that the petitioner had instituted a pre‑emption suit against the brother of the deceased, namely, Zambul Khan in a local Court at Chitral. But the same was dismissed on the very day of the occurrence, i. e. 8‑8‑1975. The record would show that the petitioner and the deceased both belonged to the same village and on account of the said litigation between them their relationship with each other had become strained. In consequence of the dismissal of his said suit by the trial Court, the petitioner felt enraged and highly indignant, as he was of the view that his suit had been dismissed by the trial Court only because the deceased was an influential person. The prosecution case is that this was a precise motive for which the petitioner decided to take the life of the deceased. And consequently shot him to death in the Main Bazar of Chitral at 1‑30 p. m. on 8‑8‑1975. In the trial Court the prosecution relied on the eye‑witness account furnished by three P. Ws., namely, Said Akbar, his father Gul Muhammad and Rehmat Wakil Shah. The prosecution further relied on the motive as well as the confessional statement of the petitioner recorded by P. W. Rustam Shah who was then the Deputy Commissioner, Chitral. As against this the petitioner in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C. denied the case of the prosecution saying that he had been falsely involved in this case. In answer to the question put to him about his confessional statement, he denied to have made the same and alleged that the Deputy Commissioner had simply made him sign on a blank paper and that he had made no confessional statement at all. The learned trial Judge, however, felt satisfied with the evidence of the prosecution and consequently convicted the petitioner as aforesaid. On reappraisal of the evidence in the High Court, the learned Judges of the Division Bench concurred with the view taken by the learned trial Judge and consequently dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the death sentence. Mr. Ashiq Hussain, the learned counsel for' the petitioner tried to pick out certain inconsequential pieces of evidence from the evidence of the P. Ws. to show that this P. Ws. had made substantial improvements in their testimony in the trial Court. He, therefore, argued that the prosecution cannot be said to have proved his case against the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt. We are afraid there is no force in the contentions urged by the learned counsel. We have gone through the evidence of the three eye‑witnesses in this case, and feel satisfied that they were not only independent but their evidence is also natural and carries conviction. It is not denied that the occurrence had taken place at' 1‑30 p. m. in the Main Bazar of Chitral, almost in front of the shops of P. W. Said Akbar and consequently Said Akbar would be the natural witness of the occurrence. The claim of P. W. Gul Muhammad is that he was present in the shop of his son Said Akbar which claim cannot be said to be unnatural. Similarly, the learned counsel has not been able to show as to why P. Ws. Said Akbar, Gul Muhammad and Rehmat Wakil Shah should be disbelieved specially when nothing was brought out from him in his cross‑examination to show that he was having any motive of his own to depose against the petitioner. The motive for the crime has also been satisfactorily established, as a certified copy of the judgment delivered in the pie‑emption case filed by the petitioner was brought on the record of the case by the prosecution. The confessional statement of the petitioner, with the Vo1untariness and truth of which we are satisfied, is another circumstance which goes against him, as in it he has substantially admitted the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel, however, argued that in the F. I. R. lodged by Said Akbar he had made no mention of the presence of P. W. Gul Muhammad, Said Akbar and Rehmat Wakil Shah on the spot. But this is hardly a ground which would advance his case. Quite apart from the fact that in the F. I. R. lodged by Said Akbar that the occurrence was witnessed by many other people even the solitary evidence of Said Akbar would be sufficient to sustain the judgment of the High Court as nothing has been brought out from him in his cross‑examination that he had any/ motive to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. We are, therefore, satisfied that the judgment of the High Court is unexceptionable. And considering that the petitioner had taken the life of the deceased entirely in cold blood, the death sentence awarded to him seems to be the only proper sentence with which no interference is called for. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.