' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No,10-L/2002 and J.P. No,15 of 2002 as they have arisen out of common judgment and involve identical questions of law and facts.
2. Brief facts are that Muhammad Amir petitioner in J.P. No,15 of 2002 along with his co-accused Lal Hussain and Muhammad Ramzan was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha in case F.I.R.
No,169, dated 25-8-1994 registered at Police Station, Bhera, District Sargodha under sections 302/324/109, P.P.C. For the murder of Jalal Din and attempting at the life of Muhammad Iqbal. The trial Judge, on conclusion of the trial, convicted Muhammad Amir under sections 302(a)/324, P.P.C.
Vide his judgment, dated 12-12-1996. Under section 302(a), P.P.C. He was sentenced to death and no compensation was awarded on the ground that the deceased was an old man and under section 324, P.P.C. He was sentenced to seven years R.I. Lal Hussain and Muhammad Raman co- accused of the convict Muhammad Amir were, however, acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. The convict challenged his conviction and sentences before the Lahore High Court, Lahore through Criminal Appeal No,1103/1996 whereas the complainant filed Criminal Revision No,10 of 1997 for awarding compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And the trial Court sent Murder Reference No,21 of 1997 for confirmation of the death sentence of the convict. A learned Division Bench of the High Court vide its common judgment, dated 29-11-2001, dismissed the appeal of the convict, confirmed his death sentence, answered the reference in the affirmative and also dismissed the revision petition of the complainant. The complainant has now filed Criminal Petition No,10-L of 2002 for awarding compensation whereas the convict has challenged his conviction and sentence through J.P. No,15 of 2002.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner in Cr.P.10-L of 2002 stated that he does not press this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
4. J.P. No,15 of 2002 is barred by 15 days. No application for condonation of delay has been filed.
However, in view of the death sentence of the convict, we condone the delay.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.1) and Muhammad Ijaz (P.W.2) both the eyewitnesses are sons of the deceased, therefore, they being interested witnesses could not be believed. The statements of the deceased Exh.P.N., P.Q. And P.Q/1 are fabricated as the deceased was not in a position to talk and make a statement. He argued that the licensed gun allegedly used by the petitioner belonged to his brother which has been planted upon him and no empty was recovered from the spot. The empties allegedly recovered from the spot, were prepared after the recovery of the gun from his brother.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the complainant supported the impugned judgment.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved its case against the petitioner beyond any shadow of doubt.
Mere relationship of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with the deceased would not make them interested and incredible witnesses. The deceased while injured made a statement Exh.P.Q. Which was attested by Dr. Ihsan Illahi P.W.6 and according to him, the patient could give the statement, as such, his statement can be treated as dying declaration wherein he has specifically charged the petitioner for effectively firing at him as a result of which he subsequently died. The empties recovered from the spot were sent to the Forensic Science. Laboratory, Lahore earlier than the recovery of the gun which, after recovery was also sent and according to the report of Examiner of Fire-arms, the empties matched with the gun which lends corroboration to the prosecution evidence. The defence version was not believed and rightly so, as it did not find any support from the record. The learned Division Bench of the High Court on proper appraisal and appreciation of the evidence on record upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and finding no flaw in the impugned judgment, no exception thereto is taken. Consequently, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.