' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.--- Saif-ul-Islam petitioner, has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 25-7-2007 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby appeal brought by petitioner against the judgment dated 4-7-2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mardan was dismissed and sentence of death confirmed.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that Ghulam Muhammad complainant, got registered case (F.I.R. No,255, dated 4-7-2007 under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. With Police Station Saddar, Mardan) against the petitioner and others. He (Ghulam Muhammad) appeared as P.W.4 and his statement reads as under:--- "P.Ws. Sardar, Shaukat and Sher Afzal are my brothers. P.W. Said Afzal is my son. Deceased Noor Muhammad and Sher Ali Khan were my brothers while deceased Muhammad Ali was my nephew.
P.Ws. Taj Muhammad and Zar Muhammad are my maternal-uncles. P.Ws. Taj Muhammad and Zar Muhammad are the cousins of accused facing trial. Furthermore, the sister of Saif-ul-Islam is the wife of P.W. Zar Muhammad. Accused Saiful-Islam and Shamsul Islam are brothers inter se while Majid co-accused is the son of Shamsul Islam accused.
' On the night of occurrence I along with P.Ws. Taj Muhammad, Zar Muhammad, Sardar, Noor Muhammad, Sher Ali, Muhammad Ali, Sher Afzal, Said Afzal and Shaukat were present in the Hujra of Zar Muhammad in connection with dispute of house of Sargand. It was about 10-00 p.m. When in the meanwhile accused Saif-ul-Islam facing trial and absconders, Shamsul Islam and Majid..
Armed with deadly weapons came to "Hujra" and started firing resultantly I, Taj Muhammad, Zar Muhammad, Sardar and Shaukat got injured while with the firing of the accused Noor Muhammad, Sher Ali Khan and Muhammad Ali were also hit and died at the spot. Motive for the offence was dispute over the house of Sargand. We all were taken to hospital in a tractor trolley with the help of co-villagers, where I made the report, which was written in the shape of Murasila Exh.P.A./1. Today I have heard the report, which is correct and correctly bears my thumb-impression. I charged the accused for the murder of Noor Muhammad, Sher Ali and Muhammad Ali. I also charged the accused for attempting at my life as well as the lives of P. Ws. Taj Muhammad, Zar Muhammad, Sardar and Shaukat. I also charged the accused for ineffectively attempting at the lives of Sher Afzal and Said Afzal."
' On his statement, present case was registered against the accused. P.W.8, Gul Imran Khan is the Investigating Officer in this case. He recorded statement of complainant (Exh.P.A./1) and prepared injury statements of all injured and deceased. He also prepared inquest reports. Alamzaib Khan, Inspector too investigated this case. He received copy of F.I.R., reached the spot, prepared site plan (Exh.P.B.) and took into possession blood-stained earth, which was made into three sealed parcels.
He also took into possession 16 empties of 7.62 bore which were lying at the place of occurrence and the same were made into sealed parcel. The empties carried smell of having been freshly discharged. He took into possession electric bulbs. Hidayat Ullah produced before him last-worn clothes of deceased which were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.W.12/1. On 6-7- 2004 Hidayat Ullah, constable produced before him blood-stained clothes of injured (Zar Muhammad, Taj Muhammad, Ghulam Muhammad and Shaukat) and the same were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.W.3/1. The accused was not arrested, therefore, he obtained his warrants and proclamation and entrusted the same to Abdul Ghaffar, constable. He recorded statements of P.Ws. And after completion of investigation handed over the case file to S.H.O.
' P.W.13, Niaz Muhammad Khan is also Investigating Officer in this case. On 23-2-2005 it was brought to his notice that accused was arrested by Interpol Police in Dubai and would be brought to Islamabad Airport whereupon he reached Islamabad and arrested him in this case. He took into possession two passports along with ticket of PIA. The accused/petitioner disclosed that kalashnikov was kept with one Javed son of Said Imran, therefore, he took the accused to Javed who handed over to him kalashnikov in the presence of witnesses which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.W.13/1. He submitted challan in Court. The accused appeared before trial Court and charge under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial whereupon prosecution evidence was recorded. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all to prove its case. Abdul Ghaffar was examined as S.W.1 whereas Riaz Muhammad was examined as S.W.2. Thereafter accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution and pleaded his innocence. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court convicted him under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death. He was also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For 10 years. Learned trial Court also convicted him under section 337-F(iii)/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer three years' R.I., vide judgment, dated 4-7-2006. The petitioner filed appeal thereagainst which was dismissed by learned High Court vide judgment, dated 25-7-2007. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As mentioned above the prosecution case is that on 4-7-2004 at about 10-00 p.m. Petitioner and his co-accused (Shamsul Islam and Majid) while armed with fire-arms caused injures on the persons of Muhammad Ali, Noor Muhammad, Sher Ali, Ghulam Muhammad (complainant), Sardar, Shaukat, Taj Muhammad and Zar Muhammad, as a result of which Muhammad Ali, Noor Muhammad and Sher Ali died. However, the case of petitioner is that he was not present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time. Prosecution examined two eye-witnesses (P.W.4, Ghulam Muhammad and P.W.5, Sher Afzal) to prove its case. Both these P.Ws. Are consistent in their statements that petitioner and his co-accused caused injuries on the persons of deceased and injured P. Ws. There is no material contradiction or discrepancy in their statements. Even otherwise their statements are convincing and confidence-inspiring and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same.
Ghulam Muhammad (P.W.4/complainant) is material witness as he received injuries during the occurrence. It is pertinent to note that there was no enmity between the parties prior to this occurrence. So there is no chance of false implication of petitioner.
4. As mentioned above the prosecution case is that on 4-7-2004 at about 10-00 p.m. Petitioner and his co-accused (Shamsul Islam and Majid) while armed with fire-arms caused injuries on the persons of Muhammad Ali, Noor Muhammad, Sher Ali, .Ghulam Muhammad (complainant), Sardar, Shaukat, Taj Muhammad and Zar Muhammad, as a result of which Muhammad Ali, Noor Muhammad and Sher Ali had died. Prosecution examined Dr. Saeed Khan as P.W.9. He had medically examined the injured P. Ws. And conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased. He has fully supported prosecution case. We find that medical evidence conforms to the ocular account furnished by eye-witnesses (P.W.4, Ghulam Muhammad and P.W.5, Sher Afzal).
5. The occurrence took place on 4-7-2004 but accused/petitioner did not joint investigation rather he went abroad (Dubai). He was brought to Pakistan through Interpol Police and on 23-2-2005 he was arrested in this case. The petitioner was declared P.O. He has failed to explain as to why he remained absent and this incriminating circumstance too operates to his disadvantage.
6. As mentioned earlier the case of petitioner is that he was not present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time. However, he has not produced any evidence in support of his version. So there is ex parte evidence of prosecution. As such defence plea has no value and learned trial Court has rightly rejected the same. In these circumstances we find that prosecution has proved its case against the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt. The judgment, dated 25-7-2007 shows that learned High Court has decided the appeal brought by petitioner after appraisal of entire material available on record. It is well-reasoned judgment. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment so as to warrant interference by this Court. As stated earlier the petitioner and his co- accused killed three innocent persons and caused injuries on the persons of five witnesses, hence, he does not deserve any leniency.
' The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition has no force which is dismissed and leave is accordingly refused.