2006 PLP 1012 (SCMR)

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.

Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 10-5-2004 of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Criminal Appeal No.67-J of 1999 was dismissed and the sentence of death awarded to him by the trial Court was maintained and compensation of Rs.50,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default to undergo two years' R.I. was maintained. He was also convicted under sections 324/334-F(ii), P.P.C. and sentenced to three years' R.I. with compensation of Rs.20,000 to be paid to Mst. Naveed injured or in default to undergo one year's R.I. was also maintained. Murder Reference No.237 of 1999 seeking confirmation of sentence of death was answered in affirmative. (2). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant Muhammad Younus (P.W.7) lodged F.I.R. alleging therein that two months prior to the occurrence Muhammad Latif deceased had married his daughter Mst. Asia with petitioner Muhammad Afzaal. 4/5 days prior to the occurrence due to strained relations Mst. Asia Bibi left the house of her husband and came to the house of her father. On 6-8-1994 at about 6-30 p.m. petitioner knocked the door of deceased who did not open the door, whereupon acquitted accused Muhammad Umar called the deceased for opening the door who was the friend of petitioner and he had effected compromise between the husband and wife earlier, as such, deceased opened the door and as soon as he came out of the house, petitioner inflicted Chhuri blows upon his abdomen. Acquitted accused caught hold of deceased from his arm and petitioner again inflicted Chhuri blows on the head of deceased who fell down. In the meanwhile Mst. Naveed wife of Sabir tried to save the deceased whereupon petitioner also inflicted Chhuri blows upon her left flank who fell down. Petitioner cut the throat of deceased who succumbed to the injuries and died at the spot. Petitioner got recovered Chhuri which was taken into possession. 4.(sic) At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. (5). Petitioner in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the case of prosecution and claimed innocence. He neither examined himself on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor led any evidence in defence. On the conclusion of trial, he was convicted and sentenced as stated above. (6). We have heard Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Raja Saeed Akram, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab on behalf of State and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars. (7). Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset contended that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the petitioner. The eye-witness account furnished by P.W.3 Dil Nawaz, P. W.4 Muhammad Ilyas and P.W.6 Mst. Naveed Bibi is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the circumstantial evidence such as recovery of blood-stained Chhuri and its positive report and the motive. According to him, deceased Latif has been done to death by the petitioner in brutal and callous manner. So much so, even the throat was cut. Irrespective of above Mst. Naveed Bibi was also seriously injured by him. (8). On the other hand Raja Saeed Akram, Additional Advocate-General Punjab for the State supported the impugned judgment. (9). We have gone through the judgments of two Courts below and do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings with regard to the guilt of the petitioner. Eye-witness account furnished by Dil Nawaz, Muhammad Ilyas and Mst. Naveed Bibi was found to be trustworthy by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. There appears to be no inherent defect or material lacuna in the evidence of these witnesses whose presence at the site has been established beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that conviction and sentence has been properly awarded. (10). Resultantly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./M-54/SC Petition dismissed.