' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 3- 4-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No 768 of 1995 and Murder Reference No,40 of 1996.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant MehtnoodAhmad, resident of Street No 65 Usman Park, Fareed Town. Gujranwala was married to Mst. Rarrizan Bibi, daughter of his maternal uncle Talib Hussain. The marriage was celebrated in the year 1984. Four sons have born out of the wedlock. Abdur Rahim, husband of complainant's maternal aunt was also resident of Chak No,122/JB Noorpur. In the year 1990, Mureed Hussain alongwith others was involved in a dacoity case and was sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment, On appeal, he was acquitted by the Lahore High Court, and his father Abdur Rahim brought him to live with the complainant at Gujranwala, therefore, he was staying with him. Mureed Hussain/accused developed illicit relations with the wife of the complainant, and about 14/15 days prior to the occurrence, the omplainant alongwith his brother Muhammad Yaqoob and father Muhammad Sharif suspected Mureed Hussain for his illicit relations withMst. Ramzan Bibi. On 30-8-1993 Ehsan Ullah.Son of the complainant, had seen his mother Mst. Ramzan Bibi and Murreed Hussain in compromising position in a room and informed the complainant about it. The complainant and his father enquired from Mureed Hussain, but he denied. On 31-8-1993, at about 6-30 a.m. Ehsan Ullah suddenly disappeared from the house. The complainant and his father started searching him, and they were told by Muhammad Riaz and complainant's brother Muhammad Yaqoob that at about 7-00 p.m. They had seen Mureed Hussain alongwith Ehsan Ullah on a cycle at the canal bridge and that Ehsan Ullah was sitting on the rearseat. The complainant thus reported that Mureed Hussain had abducted Ehsan Ullah for murder and confined him somewhere.
3. After registration of the formal F.1.R., Muhammad Younas, S.H.O. (P.W.12) proceeded to the spot, recorded statements of the P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C., prepared the rough site plan (Exh.P.F.).
On receipt of information on 5-9-1993, about dead body of a child, he went to Joianwala, the dead body was brought out from the canal, it was identified by the complainant. Injury statement (Exh,.P.G.) and inquest report (Exh.P.H.) were prepared and the dead body of the child was sent for post-mortem examination. On 26-9-1993, Mureed Hussain was arrested, who in custody, on 1-10- 1993, led the police to the recovery of shirt P.1, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C.
After completion of the investigation the petitioner was challaned to face the trial.
4. At the trail, the prosecution in order to prove its case produced 12 witnesses in all. The statement of the .Accused-petitioner was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he claimed his false implication. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 25-11-1995, convicted the petitioner under sections 364-A, 302 and 201, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death with a fine of Rs,10,000, in default one year R.I. And also to pay compensation of Rs,20,000 as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in default six months' R.I.
5`. On appeal, the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide impugned judgment dated 3-4-2001 maintained the conviction and 'sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. Hence, this jail petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that evidence adduced by the prosecution is not believable. Furthermore, the same is not sufficient to base the conviction of the petitioner, that the Courts below did not consider the case in its proper perspective and the impugned judgment is not sustainable.
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for thepetitioner and very carefully examined/analyzed the record. Admittedly, parties are closely related, inter se, and the petitioner was putting up in complainant's house after acquittal in appeal from the High Court. Mst. Ramzan Bibi P.W.2 also implicated the petitioner in her evidence. Ehsan Ullah deceased was also seen lastly with the petitioner before he was found missing. Muhammad Yousaf P.W.4 before whom the petitioner made extra-judicial confession in unequivocal terms also supported the case of the prosecution. Perusal of the record further shows that thisP.W. Had no malice, or animosity against the petitioner to falsely implicate him in the case. Even in his cross-examination also nothing was brought out to show that he had any interest or reason to implicate the petitioner. It is borne out from the record that deceased Ehsan Ullah was thrown out in the canal by the petitioner, who pointed out the place, and the prosecution received further corroboration when petitioner led to the recovery of the shirt worn by the deceased at the time of throwing him in the canal.
8. The evidence adduced during the trial was correctly appreciated and believed by the Courts below. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned and is based on the law laid down by this Court and is not open to exception.
9. For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion, that the petition is without merit and C substance, which is hereby dismissed and leave is declined.