Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, J.--This jail petition has been directed against the judgment dated 20.9.2001 passed by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner against the conviction and sentence-of death awarded to him under Section 302(b) PPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge Nankana Saib, district Sheikupura, was dismissed.
2. The occurrence in the present case had taken place at 5:30 a.m. on 3.7.1994, on the grocery shop being run by Nazir Ahmed, deceased, in village Gujjar Town Bucheki in the area of Police Station Bara Hhar, district Sheikhupura and case was registered within two hours on the same day on the statement of Haji Fazal Din (complainant). The sad incident was the result of altercation taken place a day earlier between the petitioner and Nazir Ahmed, deceased at his shop. The complainant, Haji Fazal Din (PW5) alongwith Falak Sher (PW. 6) and Ahsan, (given up PW) went to see Nazir Ahmed at his shop to inquire from him about the last day incident and as soon as they reached near the shop of Nazir Ahmed, the petitioner, armed with Churri, suddenly appearing at the scene within their sight, having inflicted three successive churri blows to the deceased on his left arm, left hand and abdomen, ran away with churri from the place of occurrence. The deceased was taken to the hospital for medical aid but he succumbed to the injuries. The motive for the occurrence as stated was that a day earlier, deceased objected to the standing of petitioner in front of his shop as females also used to make purchases from the shop whereupon petitioner having picked up a quarrel with the deceased, extended him threats of dire consequences.
3. The ocular account was furnished by Haji Fazal Din (PW.5) complainant of the case and Falak Sher (PW 6). Dr. Muhammad Aslam (PW 1) having conducted postmortem examination of the deceased found three incise wounds on his person, declared the inquiry on the abdomen fatal to life.
4. The petitioner in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. having denied the charge, pleaded false-implication-due to enmity. The learned trial Judge having found the petitioner guilty of the charge, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid and the learned Judges in the High Court in appeal filed by the petitioner maintained his conviction and sentence with conversion of fine into compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. payable to the legal heirs of the deceased and dismissed the appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the claim of eye-witnesses to have gone to the shop-of deceased early in the morning to inquire about the last day's incident being not plausible, their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence was highly doubtful, therefore, it was not safe to place reliance on their testimony. Learned counsel argued that it was an unseen occurrence which took place during the night and the petitioner was substituted for unknown culprit for the reason that he had extended threats to Ahsan (given up PW), real nephew of complainant for having developed illicit relations with his wife. The learned State counsel, on the other hand has submitted that the charge of murder was proved against the petitioner through the direct evidence beyond any reasonable doubt and he would not deserve any leniency even in the matter of sentence.
6. The petitioner in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. stated that: "Ahsan PW.(not produced)-is a real nephew of the complainant, who had developed intimate relations with my wife. I shunted her out from my house and threatened Ahsan to take revenge of my family honour and repute prior to the alleged occurrence. After a few days, deceased Nazir Ahmad was killed by some unknown persons. He was a man of bad character and used to tease girls and was killed at night time. On asking of Ahsan, complainant party involved me falsely in this case due to unfounded suspicion, and enmity."
7. The medical evidence revealed that deceased was caused two injuries on left arm and one on the abdomen with sharp edged weapon and as per postmortem report of the deceased, the time between the death and injury was about two hours and between death and postmortem was 12 hours. The medical evidence thus supported the ocular account furnished by the quite natural and independent witnesses to the extent of time of occurrence, the nature of injuries and weapons used for causing the injuries to the deceased. The blood stained churri, which was used by the petitioner as weapon of offence, was recovered on third day of the occurrence at his instance and even if the evidence of recovery would have been excluded from consideration, the charge against the petitioner could be proved on the basis of direct evidence of unimpeachable character, truthful and confidence inspiring. Learned counsel for the petitioner, laid much stress on the point that motive set up by the prosecution, was not proved and in absence of motive, there was no reason for the petitioner to commit the crime and in any case, the extreme penalty of death was not warranted in the given circumstances. The contention has no substance as motive is not an essential ingredient to prove the charge as crimes are also committed without any motive whereas in the present case, motive set up by the prosecution was proved through the most reliable evidence of eye-witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show us any material on the record to suggest that the motive was false or the petitioner at the instance of Ahsan was involved in the case by the complainant. The eye-witnesses were present of village at a short distance from the shop of deceased and it was natural for them being closely related to the deceased to got to see him at his shop in the morning to inquire from him about the incident taken place in the last day evening at his shop. The eye-witnesses have no personal grudge or enmity or motive to substitute him for unknown culprit and they while deposing quite consistently in a straightforward manner have also corroborated each other on each material point and further their testimony was also supported by the medical evidence as well as the attending circumstances to be relied upon to maintain the conviction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not, been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any legal or factual infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the two Courts regarding the guilt of petitioner calling for interference of this Court, and consequently, we would take no exception to the judgment of the High Court.
8. In the light of foregoing reasons, this petition, being without any 1 substance is dismissed. Leave is refused.