' KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The petitioner was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, by means of his judgment and order dated 16th April, 1977, for an offence under section 302, P. P. C. For the murder of Muhammad Farooq and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 2,000 or in default to undergo further R. I. For one year. Out of the fine if realized 2/3rd was directed to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner was also convicted under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 and was awarded R. I. For six months. Both these sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The petitioner filed two appeals, one against his conviction under section 302, P. P. C. And the other for his conviction under the Arms Ordinance. Both these appeals failed and were rejected by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 11th July, 1979.
3. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
4. The facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner and the deceased Muhammad Farooq were employed in a factory in Mohallah Akalgarh, Rawalpindi. In the neighbourhood of that factory was the house of one Muhammad Rafiq. The accused and the deceased used to visit that house and both had a fancy for and were carrying on romance with Mst. Tasleem Akhtar (C. W. 1) wife of the aforesaid Muhammad Rafiq. This naturally gave root to a mutual jealousy between the two suitors. It is alleged that on the 20th February, 1975,.The petitioner all of a sudden left the factory.
The deceased Muhammad Farooq (rival lover) suspected that the petitioner must have gone to Mst. Tasleem Akhtar, therefore, he i.e, the deceased pursued the petitioner and while doing so, took along with him Muhammad Zaheer (P. W. 8) and Azizur Rehman (P. W. 9). When they entered the house of Mst. Tasleem Akhtar and opened the door of the room, they found the petitioner and Mst.
Tasleem Akhtar sitting on one cot in an embracing position. The petitioner got enraged and asked the deceased as to why he had brought other persons at that place at that time. The petitioner picked up revolver which was lying on the cot and aimed the same at the deceased Muhammad Farooq and killed him at the spot. After this attack the accused petitioner made good his escape. It is alleged that at about noon time the same day the petitioner then contacted Malik Haq Nawaz (P.
W. 7), Chairman of the P. P. P. Of that locality ; confessed his guilt ; tendered the revolver Exh. P/7 along-with four live bullets Exh. P. 8/1-4 and one empty Exh. P/9 lying in the chamber of the revolver.
Malik Haq Nawaz (P. W. 7) produced the accused before Mir Afzal (P. W. 10) who took the same into his possession vide memo. Exh. P/C. The F. I. R. Of this incident was lodged by Muhammad Zaheer (P. W. 8) brother of the deceased in the form of a statement Exh. P/B to Mir Afzal, A.S.I. Who remitted the same to the concerned police station where it was recorded in the form of Exh.. P/B-1 by Muhammad Ashraf, A. S. 1.
5. The prosecution case consists of-
(a) the medical evidence
(b) the ocular evidence as given by Muhammad Zaheer (P. W. 8) and Azizur Rehman (P. W. 9) ; and
(c) the production of the revolver by the petitioner.
6. We have gone through the record ; heard the learned counsel at length and have attended to the arguments advanced by him. It may be mentioned that the medical evidence shows that deceased died as a result of a fire-arm injury. This supports the prosecution case that the deceased was attacked by a fire-arm. This post-mortem examination further shows that there was blackening of the skin which proves the prosecution case that the firing was resorted to from a very close range on the deceased. There were found bloodstains on the quilt lying on the cot which also indicates that the occurrence took place in the same room and that the deceased must have (to say the least) fallen on that quilt. Learned counsel tried to argue that the journey of the bullet as evident from the medical evidence was from up to downward in left to right direction. He argued that it meant that the victim must have been attacked either when he was lying on the cot or was on a lower level from the assailant, whereas the evidence is that on seeing the deceased, the petitioner got up from the cot' and then attacked him apparently from an equal level. According to the learned counsel this showed that the eye-witnesses' account of the incident was not correct.
The contention has no merit. It is in evidence of Muhammad Zaheer (P. W. 8) that before the actual firing there first took place exchange of abuses and then some attempt was made by the deceased by raising his hand to snatch the revolver from the petitioner. In this way the direction of the journey of the bullet could not have remained straight or uniform as is being suggested by the learned counsel.
7. As regards the ocular evidence it is fully supported by Muhammad Zaheer (P. W. 8) brother of the deceased and Azizur Rehman (P. W. 9). The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 20th February, 1975 at 8-15 a. Tn. And the F.
1. R. Was lodged promptly without any delay at 9-35 a. m. The distance between the place of the occurrence and police station being only two furlongs. The prompt lodging of the F. I. R. Shows that there was neither any time nor any question of substituting the petitioner for any other assailant.
Azizur Rehman (P. W. 9) is an independent witness who has no enmity with the petitioner, and there is nothing on the record to discredited his testimony.
8. The above evidence is then supported by the production by the petitioner of revolver Exh. P/7 and live bullets Exh. P/8/1-4 and one empty which was contained in the chamber of the revolver. These were taken into possession the same day by the Investigating Officer before whom the accused was produced by Malik Haq Nawaz (P. W. 7). The expert evidence showed as held by the High Court that the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased was fired from the revolver produced by the petitioner.
9. The above discussion will show that there is copious evidence on the record to establish the guilt of the petitioner. The aforesaid evidence has been minutely scrutinized by the Courts below and the learned counsel has not been able to point out violation of any principle of law in the matter of appreciation of evidence in cases of this type warranting interference by this Court. Learned counsel lastly argued that it was the deceased who really was carrying on a love affair with Mst.
Tasleem Akhtar and that the petitioner was not involved in any rival adventure of that kind with that lady and, therefore, he had no motive to kill the deceased. At this place it may be mentioned that Mst. Tasleem Akhtar was called as a Court witness and appeared as C. W.
1. In her statement, she supported the prosecution case that it was the petitioner who on seeing the deceased opened fire and killed him on the spot. The result is that we find no mistake in the matter of appreciation of evidence as made by the Courts below. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.