' NASIR-UL-MULK, J.---The petitioner liking with four others, Ahmad Yar, Soba, Mushtaq.And Arif, were charged and tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur, for the murder of Muhammad Ameer, Advocate. Whereas the petitioner's co-accused were acquitted, the petitioner was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court, against which he has filed this Jail Petition for leave to appeal.
2. The murder of Muhammad Ameer, Advocate, was reported by his brother Bashir Ahmed, who disclosed that he along with Ashraf Ali and Asghar were present in the chambers of his brother Muhammad Ameer in the morning on 8-12-2001 for consultation on some legal matters. That at about 9-30 a.m. When his brother came into the chambers, he was followed by Maqsood, who all of sudden took out his rifle and after announcing that he would eliminate Muhammad Ameer for pursuing the cases against him, he fired at the Advocate and killed him. Maqsood was accompanied by Ahmad Yar, Soba, Mushtaq and Arif, all of whom, while brandishing their pistols left the chambers. However, the people chased them in the Court's premises and Maqsood was arrested along with his rifle. Motive alleged in the F.I.R. Was that of litigation over land between the accused and the complainant party.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the relevant evidence.
4. The prosecution case rests upon the ocular testimony of Bashir Ahmad and Ashraf Ali, who claimed to have been present in the chambers of the deceased at the time of occurrence. The reason for their presence was to consult the Advocate regarding some litigation. Their presence at the chambers of the Advocate could not be :termed as abnormal. The petitioner was arrested in the Court premises by the police, while he was fleeing the scene after committing the crime. The rifle, with which he committed the murder, was recovered from him at the time of arrest. The empty retrieved from the scene of occurrence was sent for examination to the forensic laboratory along with rifle. According to the report of firearms expert, the empty matched with the weapon of offence. The motive for the crime has been rather admitted by the petitioner in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr. P .C.
5. As the ocular testimony has been amply corroborated by the arrest of the petitioner from scene soon after the murder, the motive and the matching of the empty with the weapon of offence, recovered from the petitioner, we do not find any reason to further reappraise the evidence. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner by the trial Court and its affirmation by the High Court does not call for any interference in our constitutional jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave declined.
Leave declined.