Abdul Harneed Dogar, J.--This jail petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 16.12.2003 passed by a learned Division of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Criminal Appeal No, 20-J of 2000 was dismissed and death sentence awarded under Section 302(b) PPC with fine of Rs, 40,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased or in default to undergo six months S.I. against the petitioner was maintained. Murder Reference No, 23 of 2000 forwarded by the trial Court was answered in affirmative.
2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case according to the FIR are that on 7.8.1998 at about 11.30 a.m. complainant Muhammad Ramzan alongwith his son Aamer had gone to the house of his sister Mst.
Ghulam Fiza. When at about 2.30 p.m. his son started going out of the house of his sister, PW Safi- ul-Hassan son of Mst. Ghulam Fiza came to say them good-bye at the door. As soon as the complainant came out of the door, he saw petitioner Shabbir Hussain, his real brother, standing with pistol. He raised lalkara to tech lesson of filing civil suit and to end the race of complainant and made two successive fires at his son Aamer which hit on front side of his chest near the; right and left nipple who .fell down on the ground and died at the spot. The motive of the occurrence was stated to be the dispute over the house and civil litigation. The petitioner fled away from the spot.
3. On 13.8.1998 the petitioner was arrested and having 7 MM rifle with him at that time. Thereafter, a .30 bore pistol was also recovered at his pointation from his residential quarter in village Ali Chak.
On completion of investigation, he was sent up to face trial.
4. At trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all.
5. On autopsy, PW-11 Dr. Farooq Ahmed Bungish found the following injuries on the person of deceased Aamer:
(i) A fire-arm injury wound 2 cm x 1 cm x going inward over the front of upper part of right side of the chest 3 c.m. away and media to the right nipple. No blackening was present. Note: A metallic body recovered beneath the entry wound lying over the rib gage.
(ii) A fire-arm entry wound 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x margin inverted over the front and middle part of left side of the chest 3 cm away from the mid sternal line, no blackening was present. Exit wound 1 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm back or right side of the chest lower aspect of 2 cm away from the med vertebral line.
6. Petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. admitted the motive i,e, filing of civil suit over a dispute of a house in between him and his real brother complainant Muhammad Ramzan father of Aamer deceased. However, he neither examined himself on Oath as required under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor led any evidence in defence.
7. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned ASC for the petitioner and Raja Saeed Akram, Additional A.G. for the State and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
8. At the very out set learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner frankly conceded that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the petitioner beyond any shadow of doubt. According to him, in this case the prosecution has put forth eye-witness account furnished by (PW-3) complainant Muhammad Ramzan, real brother of petitioner and father of deceased and. PW-4 Safi-ul-Hassan the son of Ghulam Fiza, his as well as the petitioner's real sister.
Irrespective of above, PW-5 Muhammad Hanif, brother-in-law of the petitioner and that of complainant has given a straight forward account of the recovery of crime weapon from the Petitioner. According to him, both the Courts below has properly appreciated the ocular testimony, medical evidence as well as that of recovery and arrived at proper conclusion.
9. On the other hand Raja Saeed Akram, Additional Advocate General Punjab has supported the impugned judgment.
10.Since learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner frankly conceded that both Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner after evaluating and appreciating the ocular testimony, motive, recovery of weapon of offence and medical evidence while discussing the same in detail. Irrespective of above, learned High Court also A called Fronesic Science Expert in the Court who after examining the doctor's testimony and details of injuries categorically stated that both these injuries were caused from the same weapon dispelling the contention of the learned defence counsel raised before the High Court that the injuries were the result of two different type of fire-arm weapons.
11.Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below which were recorded on proper appraisal of evidence. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.