1987 PLP 1758 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑ Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 126 of 1984 and Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.135 of 1984 are directed against the same judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore and therefore these are being taken up and disposed of together. Criminal Petition No.135 of 1984 has been filed by Anwarul Haq petitioner against his conviction as well as sentence under section 302 PPC awarded by the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide its judgment dated 6th March 1984 whereas Criminal Petition No.126 of 1984 has been filed by Mst Irshad Begum complainant for enhancement of the sentence of Anwarul Haq petitioner. Briefly the facts are that Anwarul Haq petitioner along with Mohammad Khan was tried under section 302/34 PPC for the murder of Nazir Ahmad and vide judgment dated 13th October 1981 of the Additional Sessions Judge Sahiwal, Anwarul Haq petitioner was sentenced to death and Mohammad Khan co‑accused sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine of Rs.2,000 imposed on both of them under section 302/34 PPC. In appeal the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide its judgment dated 6th March 1986 acquitted Mohammad Khan but maintaining the conviction of Anwarul Haq petitioner reduced his sentence of death to life imprisonment plus the same fine. The occurrence took place on 23rd March 1981 at 8‑30 p.m. in Chak No. 4/14‑L District Sahiwal. FIR was lodged by Shan Mohammad PW first cousin of the deceased on the same day at 9‑30 p.m. The petitioner was arrested on 27th March 1981. Pistol P6 with crime empty P7 in its barrel was recovered from him. The crime empty in the barrel matched with the same. According to the medical evidence there were six fire‑arm wounds of entry on the left side of the chest of the deceased and the injury was found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. There are two eye‑witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Shan Mohammad PW first cousin of the deceased and Saifur Rahman PW nephew of the deceased. The motive for crime is that in 1965 the deceased had abducted Mst Kaneezan the mother of the petitioner and his brother Mohammad Khan when they were minors. About 4/5 days prior to the present occurrence Shan Mohammad PW had gone to Chichawatni where both the petitioner and Mohammad Khan met him and told him that they would avenge their insult. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and his brother murdered the deceased due to this grievance. According to the prosecution version on the fateful day Shan Mohammad PW along with Saifur Rahman PW was sitting in front of the shop of one Inayat Mochi and they were talking to each other. Meanwhile the petitioner and Mohammad Khan came there. The house of the deceased was close to the shop of the said Inayat Mochi. Mohammad Khan called out the deceased from his house. When he came to the gate Mohammad Khan pulled him with his hand on which Shan Mohammad PW and others got up to rescue him. But in the meantime the petitioner fired at the deceased hitting him on the left side of the chest. The deceased died on the spot but the petitioner and his companion ran away. The occurrence was witnessed by the aforesaid two eye‑witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner Anwarul Haq argued that two of the eye‑witnesses in the instant case were closely related to the deceased and were chance witnesses, and therefore no reliance should be placed on the ocular testimony in the instant case as it was not corroborated. Learned counsel for Mst. Irshad Begum complainant petitioner on the other hand argued that his client Mst. Irshad Begum was sister of the deceased in this case. It was submitted that if the deceased had abducted the mother of Anwarul Haq petitioner, it was long time ago and that she was restored and did not live with him. Thus according to the learned counsel there was no ground for awarding lesser penalty to him. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel of both the sides. In our considered opinion no case for re‑appraisal of evidence is made out. The judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore does not require any interference in the instant' case. The result is that both the aforementioned petitions (Criminal Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos.126 and 135 of 1984) are hereby dismissed. K.B.A./I‑15/S Leave refused