' M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.--- The petitioner Faiz Muhammad along with nine other co-accused, was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, in case F.I.R. No, 138/1996, dated 18-7-1996 registered at Police Station Zahir Peer, for offences under sections 302/ 324/449/337-F(iii) and (vi)/365/148/149, P.P.C., at the instance of complainant Manzoor Ahmad, for an occurrence which allegedly took place on the same day at 3-00 a.m.
2. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 4-4-2000, while acquitting the co-accused of the charge of murder, convicted the petitioner as under: "(i) Under section 302(b), P.P.C. Death. The convict was also directed to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Nawaz. In default of payment thereof the convict was to suffer further R.I. For one year.
(ii) Under sections 337-A(i)/337-F(i), P.P.C. One year's R.I for each offence and Daman of Rs,2,000 on each count to be paid to the injured Khushi Muhammad. In default of payment thereof, the convict was to suffer further R.I. For three months.
(iii) Under sections 365 and 449/149. P.P.C. Five years' R.I for each offence plus fine of Rs,2,000 on each count. In default of payment thereof, further R.I. For one month.
(iv) Under section 148, P.P.C. Two years' R.I.
' The rest of the co-accused were convicted under sections 365/ 149, 449, P.P.C. And 148, P.P.C. And one co-accused namely Ansar additionally under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. And were variously sentenced.
3 All the convicts assailed their convictions and sentences through Criminal Appeal No,33 of 2000 whereas Murder Reference No,7 of 2000 was forwarded seeking confirmation of the death sentence of the petitioner. At the time of hearing of the appeal before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, the appeal qua the rest of the convicts was not pressed as they had already been released from Jail after serving out their sentences. The appeal to their extent was accordingly dismissed.
' As far as, the petitioner Faiz Muhammad was concerned, his learned counsel did not press the appeal for acquittal and prayed for the reduction of the sentence. The learned Division Bench of the High Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 10-2-2005, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner under section 302(b), P.P.C. Reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life.
4. The petitioner through this petition from Jail, which is barred by time by 198 days, is seeking leave to appeal against the above-mentioned impugned judgment passed by the High Court before this Court.
5. The relevant facts as alleged, are that Khushi Muhammad (P.W.5) an employee of Pervaiz Akhtar (P.W.19) was living along with his family members in Mouza Ghauspura. His daughter Mst. Irshad Bibi (P.W.8) was married with Faiz Muhammad petitioner who was resident of Chak No,93/D.B.
Yazman. Mst. Irshad Bibi had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and was living with her parents.
About one month prior to the occurrence, the petitioner, his brother Nasar, his nephew Ansar, Ghulam Nabi Bhatti and Ilyas Langra went to the house of Khushi Muhammad and pressed for the withdrawal of the suit filed by his daughter. They left issuing threats. The dissolution suit provided a source of constant bitterness between the parties resulting in frequent quarrels. On the fateful night, the complainant was sleeping in his house. On hearing a noise at about 3-00 a.m., he went to the house of Khushi Muhammad and saw in the light of the electric bulb that Faiz Muhammad armed with .12 bore, Nasar and Ansar armed with .12 bore pistols, Muhammad Ilyas Langra, Ghulam Jat armed with revolver, along with five unknown accused, were present in the compound of Khushi Muhammad. The accused were trying to forcibly abduct Mst. Irshad Bibi. The accused threatened the witnesses with dire consequences in case they interfered. Meanwhile, Muhammad Nawaz deceased, Abdul Sattar P.W.4, Muhammad Ashraf, Noor Ahmad and Ghulam Yasin also reached the spot. Khushi Muhammad tried to rescue his daughter. He was fired upon by Muhammad Ilyas.
Khushi Muhammad fell down. When Muhammad Ashraf tried to rescue his sister, he was fired upon by Ghulam Nabi. He also fell down. Ansar accused effectively fired upon Abdul Sattar P.W.4. Faiz Muhammad and Nasar fired at Muhammad Nawaz who fell down after receiving the injuries.
Thereafter, the accused after resorting to indiscriminate firing, forcibly put Mst. Irshad Bibi in a Wagon and left the scene of occurrence. Muhammad Nawaz died at the spot while Abdul Sattar, Khushi Muhammad and Muhammad Ashraf who had received the injuries, were taken to hospital in a Tractor trolley and the matter was reported to the police.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and have also seen the available record.
7: At the time of hearing of appeal before the High Court, the petitioner's conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. Was not assailed and only reduction in the sentence was prayed for wt I I request was not resisted by the learned counsel for the Respondent/State for the reasons that the conviction was not being assailed. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing before us, in the circumstances, has not, been able to say any thing in regard to the conviction of the petitioner.
Even otherwise, the perusal of the record shows that occurrence had taken place in the house of Khushi Muhammad P.W.S. Both the eye-witnesses namely Khushi Muhammad (P.W.5) and Abdul Sattar (P.W.4) received injuries during the occurrence. Their presence cannot be doubted. Their statements were not only corroborated by the statement of Manzoor Ahmad (P.W.10) and Mst.
Irshad Bibi (P.W.8) but also by the medical evidence. FIR was lodged promptly. In our opinion, the Courts below had correctly concluded that prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. As regards the sentence, the petitioner has already been dealt with extremely leniently, by the High Court which does not warrant any interference by this Court.
8. We have also gone through the accompanying application seeking condonation of delay. It does not disclose any lawful grounds for allowing the same.
' In view of the above-mentioned, this petition is dismissed on merit as well as for being grossly barred by time. .