' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.--- The petitioner, after having been found guilty by the trial Court under section 302(b), P.P.C. Sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a compensation of Rs,50,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, filed an appeal before the High Court but with no positive result, hence present petition.
2. The brief facts of the case have been given in para.2 of the impugned judgment are that:- "(2) Brief facts of the case as narrated by Arif Ali complainant in Exh.P.E. Are that his sister Mst.
Kausar Bibi alias Mai Bibi aged 25/26 years was married with Khushhaal (brother of Nehal accused) about nine years back. Her husband Khushhaal and the brother of her husband (Daiwar)
Nehal Ahmad accused started taunting her after some period of marriage that she had developed illicit relations with Ghafoor son of Baila of the village. Whereupon, she was annoyed and came to the house of her parents. On the day of occurrence, i,e, 27-5-1998 Mst. Kausar Bibi deceased along with her sister Mst. Meeran Bibi and mother Mst. Bakhan Bibi went to the land of Abdul Khaliq Lamberdar to answer the call of nature after Fajir prayer time. The complainant followed them in order to go to his labour. The deceased Kausar Bibi and the P.Ws. Meeran Bibi as well as Bakhan Bibi were at the distance of one acre from the complainant. In the meanwhile, Nehaal Ahmad accused armed with Kassi and Mazhar Hussain accused empty-handed, who were hiding themselves in the watercourse passing through the land of Abdul Khaliq Lamberdar suddenly emerged there. Nehaal Ahmad accused raised a Lalkara that Mst. Kausar Bibi had put their honour at stake so they would not keep her alive. Mazhar Hussain pushed Mst. Kausar Bibi, who fell down. In the view of the complainant and other P.Ws. Nehaal Ahmad accused inflicted various Kassi blows on the person of Kausar Bibi deceased, which hit her at her chin, chest and both hands. On challenging the complainant and other P.Ws. Both the accused made good their escape along with Kassi. Kausar Bibi succumbed to her injuries at the spot."
3. After close of the prosecution case, the petitioner was also examined under section 342, Cr.P.C.
His plea is that the deceased was done to death by the complainant Arif Ali, his brother and who has later on committed a suicide after a month of occurrence and a false case had been brought against him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the circumstances of the case, particularly the suicide committed by the complainant Arif Ali, is an indicative factor that it was he; who after commission of the murder of his sister, later on committed suicide and this fact gives strength to the plea taken by the petitioner. He has also referred to certain portions in the statement of the eye-witness Mst. Bakhan, P.W.3 (mother of the deceased)'wherein she has stated that the deceased was not enjoying a good reputation. The learned counsel for the State has, however, supported the judgments of the Courts below and has submitted that the petitioner was rightly held guilty, convicted and sentenced accordingly.
5. We have gone through the available record of the case in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The ocular version has been furnished by the two P.Ws. i,e, Mst. Bakhan Bibi P.W.3 (mother of the deceased) and Mst. Ameeran Bibi, P.W.4 (sister of the deceased). In the natural course of events and traditions prevalent in the locality, if a woman comes out from the house A to attend the call of nature at that time as given in the F.I.R. About the occurrence, then she would not come out from the house to attend the same all alone but along with other female members of the family. Thus, the two witnesses who have deposed against the petitioners cannot be termed as unnatural witness and their presence cannot be doubted. Their version finds support from the medical evidence. The commission of suicide by Arif Ali, is not a ground by itself relatable to the murder of the deceased unless some tangible facts have been brought on record, which are lacking, to support the view of the learned counsel of the petitioner.
The verdict rendered by the two Courts below regarding the guilt of the petitioner is in accordance with the evidence on record and nothing material was pointed out to create any doubt in the prosecution case. We see no reason; to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below.
6. This petition has got no force and is dismissed. Leave declined.