ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 19-3-1978 whereby it accepted the appeal against the acquittal of Muhammad Ashraf, set aside the order of his acquittal by the trial Court and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under section 302, P. P. C. For the murder of Muhammad Rafiq.
2. The murder in question took place at about 1 p.m. On 6-11-1972 and the F. I. R. Lodged by Faqir Muhammad the father of the deceased on the same day at 2-30 p.m., which was recorded by Tajammal Shah, S. L, P. W.
11. He stated in the F. I. R. That early in the morning that day he had gone to the flour Mill to get some wheat ground. He was informed there that his son Rafiq whom he had left behind to look after his shop (which is adjacent to his house) had been murdered. Faqir Muhammad rushed back to his house and found the body of his son lying on a cot in front of his (Faqir Muhammad's shop). Since the body was besmeared with blood he could not notice the exact location of the injuries. He was however told by his grandson (Shaukat P. W. Who was about 7 years old at that time) at about 1 P. M. When he was playing near the shop. Mst. Gulnosh P. W. 3 and Mst. Maqsoodan P. W. 5 (the daughters of Faqir Muhammad were present near the door of their house and Rafiq (deceased) was sleeping on a charpoy in front of the shop, Khan Zaman armed with a Tamancha and Ashraf armed with a gun came there. Ashraf fired at Rafiq and thereafter both the accused ran away.
3. The motive for the murder is stated to be that a day prior to the occurrence, the sister of Khan Zaman co-accused, had come to shop of Rafiq to make some purchase. Khan Zaman also came there and started abusing her for having come to the shop. Rafiq reprimanded him and told him not to abuse her in public. Khan Zaman did not like this and grappled with him but they were separated. Khan Zaman harboured a grievance against Rafiq on this account, and on the next day he came with Ashraf, appellant to kill Rafiq. Both of them were armed as aforesaid but Ashraf, appellant did the shooting. Faqir Muhammad also gave another motive in his statement at the trial namely that the two accused suspected that Mst. Shamim the daughter of maternal uncle of Ashraf had illicit connection with the deceased.
4. After recording the F. I. R., the S. H. O. Went to the spot but made no recoveries from there. He sent the dead body for post-mortem ex--amination. The doctor found seven separate pellet injuries on the dead body which were the result of single shot. Both the accused were missing from their houses. Khan Zaman was arrested on 6-11-1973 and was tried for the murder of Rafiq but he was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar vide his judgment dated 22-12-1973.
Muhammad Ashraf, appellant, who had not yet been apprehended, obviously felt secure after the acquittal of Khan Zaman, co-accused and surrendered himself after one month, on 28-1-1974. He was tried separately by the learned Sessions Judge, Peshawar, who also acquitted him. The State, however, filed an appeal against his acquittal before the High Court, Peshawar which was accepted vide the impugned judgment and Ashraf was convicted under section 302/34, P. P. C.
And sentenced as aforesaid. He has now appealed to this Court.
5. It may be mentioned that at trial the prosecution relied on the testimony of Shaukat P. W. 5 (the nephew of the deceased who was seven years old at that time) and two sisters of the deceased namely, Mst. Gulnosh, P. W. 6 and Maqsoodan, P. W.
7. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of motive which was proved through P. W. 4, Ziarat Gul, and the medical evidence. The appellant simply denied his guilt and pleaded innocence.
6. The eye-witnesses fully supported the prosecution case. The two girls who are sisters of Rafiq, deceased have stated that they were unmarried were living in their father's house along with Rafiq, deceased, and that on the day of occurrence, they were washing some clothes in front of the entrance door of their house when they saw Khan Zaman (the acquitted accused), and Ashraf, appellant, who are cousins inter se and also related to them, coming there, armed with a pistol and gun respectively, and that Ashraf, appellant, fired at their brother who was sleeping on a cot in front of their father's shop. They stated further that the occurrence was also witnessed by Shaukat, P. W.
5 who was playing nearby. They stated that they raised alarm and even pursued the accused for a short while till they were threatened by the accused. Some one called their father who came and lodged the F. I. R. Shaukat, P. W. 5 also supported the prosecu--tion version and stated that he was playing outside his house .Near the shop of Faqir Muhammad, Rafiq, deceased was sleeping on a cot in front of his shop he had told him (Shaukat) to wake him (Rafiq) up if some customer comes.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant attacked the testimony of the three eye-witnesses before us and urged that they ought not to have been believed without any corroboration, as all of them are closely related to the deceased. He submitted further that Mst. Gulnosh and Mst. Maqsoodan have made up the story that they were washing clothes merely to make out an excuse for their being present outside the door of their house at the relevant time. He said they had only 8 clothes to wash, which they had started washing in the morning and they could not have gone on washing them till 1 p.m. He contended further that Shaukat, P. W. Could not have been playing near the place of occurrence at that time.
8. We are not at all impressed by the criticism of the eye-witnesses. They are the most natural witnesses possible. Mst. Gulnosh and Mst.1 Maqsoodan, who are unmarried reside in the same house as their brother Rafiq and the murder took place right in front of their father's shop which is adjacent to their house. The house of Shaukat, P. W. Is also about 10/15 paces away from the spot and it is quite natural for a boy of seven years to be playing near his house. It was also quite normal for the two girls to have' been washing clothes in front of their own house. They explained that after they started washing some general relative had come to visit them and when the guests left they resumed washing the clothes. It is not alleged that they had any hostility against the appellant. As a matter of fact it is on record that the appellant is related to them. Therefore there is no reason why the two P. Ws. Should have implicated him falsely for this gruesome murder, instead of naming the real culprit.
We are, therefore, of the view that the testimoney of these witnesses was rightly relied upon by the High Court. Moreover, their testimony is corroborated by both the motive and the medical evidence also by the fact that the appellant had absconded after occurrence. In this view of the matter, we feel that the appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.