' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Two real brothers, namely, Abdul Razzaq and Abdul Latif were accused of having murdered Fayyaz deceased at the hotel run by the said deceased and his complainant brother. As a result of the trial held by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mianwali both the said brothers were convicted under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. And each one of them was consequently punished with death. The appeal filed by the said convicts succeeded partly through a judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 31-3-2003 as a result whereof the conviction and punishment recorded against Abdul Latif was set aside who was resultantly acquitted. However, the conviction and punishment of death recorded against Abdul Razzaq was maintained and the sentence of death awarded to him was confirmed.
2. Hence this petition by Abdul Razzaq convict.
3. The occurrence in question had admittedly taken place in broad daylight in a busy Bazar and the same, therefore, could not have gone A unwitnessed nor could have the culprit escaped unnoticed.
It is on record that the occurrence had taken place at the hotel of the deceased party located in Kutchery Road. Except a suggestion that the hotel of the deceased party was situated in the Coach Stand, no material could be brought on record by the defence to falsify the assertion that the said hotel was situated in Kutchery Bazar and that is where the crime in question had been committed.
It was also the case of the prosecution that the said hotel was being run by the deceased together with his brother, namely, Munir complainant. In this view of the matter, Munir complainant was a natural witness of the said occurrence. No previous enmity or existed between the complainant party and the convict- petitioner which could have promoted the two eye-witnesses to falsify and maliciously implicate the convict in the commission of the offence in question. Both the eye- witnesses i.e, Munir (P.W.7) and Khalid (P.W.8) B were thus, independent witnesses of the occurrence out of whom Munir complainant was also a natural witness of the same being a partner in the hotel where the said occurrence had taken place of occurrence and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory before the arrest of the petitioner was found to have been fired from the shot-gun recovered at the instance of Abdul Razzaq convict.
4. In this view of the matter, no exception could be taken to the findings of guilt recorded against the petitioner by the learned trial Judge and maintained by the learned High Court in appeal.
5. It was through his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. That the petitioner had attempted to show that he was a minor at the time of the occurrence. A copy of the birth certificate (Exh.P.M.) of the petitioner was thereafter produced by the prosecution to falsify the said claim. Despite opportunities available to the petitioner, he had failed to produce any evidence on record to show that the said birth certificate was not reliable. Consequently, the finding of the two learned Courts that the C petitioner was not a minor at the time of the occurrence was also not open to any exception.
6. Having thus, examined all aspects of the matter, we find that the conviction recorded against the petitioner did not admit of an interference and no circumstances existed on record which could warrant imposition of the lesser penalty on the petitioner.
7. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. Leave refused.
Leave to .