' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---The appellant Akhtar Ali was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge at Bahawalnagar for committing Qatl-e-amd of Mst. Najma Bibi in case F.I.R. No, 861 dated 30-12- 2002, Police Station City, Bahawalnagar. He was sentenced to death and directed to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or in lieu thereof to suffer further imprisonment for six months vide judgment dated 26-6-2003. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence through Criminal Appeal No,184-J of 2003 which was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur vide judgment dated 13-10-2008 and confirmed the death sentence.
2. The occurrence took place on 30-12-2002 at about 8 p.m. In the house of Mst. Najma Bibi deceased situated in Mohallah Farooqabad, Bahawalnagar where P.W.2 Muhammad Ashraf, his brother Akram, Mazhar, Khadija Bibi and P.W.3 Niaz Ahmed the husband of Mst. Najma Bibi deceased were present. On a knock at the door, Mst. Najma Bibi had just opened the door when appellant Akhtar Ali made his way into the house and asked them to hand over all they had Mst.
Najma Bibi who was standing close to the appellant/convict attempted to snatch the pistol from him, upon which the appellant made a straight fire on Mst. Najma Bibi hitting on her neck. On the alarm raised by the P.Ws. And hearing report of pistol shot, the residents of the Mohallah were attracted to the scene of occurrence. The appellant attempted to run away but he was chased and apprehended along with his pistol. P.W.2 Muhammad Ashraf leaving the dead-body at the spot and appellant Akhtar Ali in the custody of Naiz Ahmed and other P.Ws. Went to the police station and lodged report Exh.PD. Upon completion of investigation, appellant was sent to Court to face trial.
3. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge produced as many as 11 witnesses which included P.W.2 Muhammad Ashraf, P.W.3 Naiz Ahmed, P.W.4 Muhammad Fiaz and P.W.5 Muhammad Yasin, who furnished ocular account of the occurrence.
4. Appellant Akhtar Ali in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied and controverted the allegation. He also denied that he was arrested at the spot and professed innocence, In order to appreciate his plea, his reply to question No,10 is reproduced as under:-- "I am innocent. In fact some unknown assailants who had come with the intention of dacoity to the place of occurrence had committed the occurrence and after the occurrence police was informed by a telephonic call. Unknown persons had escaped from the spot thereafter police arrested me on the next day of occurrence only to show their efficiency and after preliminary inquiry and investigation. I was eloped in this case. I deserve acquittal being innocent."
' He, however, declined to appear in the witness box in disproof of the charge as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And also did not produce any evidence in his defence.
5. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court held the appellant responsible for the murder of Mst. Najma Bibi and sentenced him to death as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment.
6. On appeal, learned Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur dismissed Criminal Appeal No, 184-J of 2003 and confirmed the death sentence passed by the trial Court vide impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the assailants were unknown and the appellant was apprehended by the police on the following morning and implicated in this case.
9. On the other hand learned DPG Punjab supported the impugned judgment and argued that appellant was apprehended immediately after the occurrence by the P.Ws. And produced before the police.
10. We have considered the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appellant was apprehended immediately after the occurrence by the P.Ws. Who have absolutely no motive to implicate the appellant. The defence plea is unfounded besides being an afterthought. We have found no reason to take any exception to the findings of the trial Court as well as of the appellate Court. Therefore, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.