1. In this matter yesterday arguments were party heard and the matter was adjourned for today when the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out pendency of C.M.A.No,2752/2008. He submits that this application may be decided first. He submits that by this application two witnesses have been requested to depose towards additional evidence in the matter. These witnesses are Dr. Imran A Sarwar, MLO, Civil Hospital, Karachi, who had examined the appellant and his son while the other would be the witness Shaukat Abbas (wrongly mentioned in the application as Shaukat Abbas). This witness has been requested on the ground that he had visited the place of the incident on 7-7-2002 on the information of Rescue 15 and had submitted a report to the TPO, Jamshed Town, Karachi, regarding factual position of the incident. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that to meet the ends of justice the presence of the above mentioned witnesses is necessary.
2. ' On the other hand, learned APG strongly opposes this application on the ground that most of the witnesses have appeared before the trial Court while death sentence has been awarded to the appellant. He submits that the factual position in respect of the injuries of the appellant and his son is not the subject-matter of the appeal as they were allegedly beaten by the public a the place of incident while the witness Shaukat Abbas is also not necessary as he was SDPO and some of the police official had appeared after information on Rescue 15 and that the ocular evidence in the matter was quite sufficient to be considered for the purpose of decision of appeal.
3. Hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the proposition of the learned APG is quite right as no such request was made in the trial Court when the witnesses were produced. The MLO, requested, is in respect of injuries to the appellant and his son, which is not being disputed as according to learned APG, public gave them beating after double murder. The evidence of SDPO is also not necessary as police papers of both mashirnamas etc. Have come on record while fact in respect to information on 15 has also been spelled out in the facts of the case, here is no strong ground to show that whether expected evidence will effect the ocular or circumstantial evidence. In such a situation this application (C.M.A. No,2752 of 2008) is dismissed.