1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-Petitioner Awal Khan was tried for the murder of Gulfaraz which was committed on the 7th October 1967, at about 3-00 p. m. In the area of Mouza Shah Dhand, Peshawar City. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar by judgment dated the 19th March 1969, convicted the petitioner under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced him to death. His conviction was also upheld by the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1969, decided on the 17th December 1969. The petitioner seeks special leave to file an appeal against his conviction.
2. The prosecution case is that on the 7th October 1967, Mst. Hawa Jan, her daughter Mst. Nursheda and Mst. Jamheda and her son Gulfaraz deceased were present in the house at Mouza Shah Dhand. Awal Khan petitioner called at that time the deceased from his house and protested that he was not justified to stop men and women from visiting the house of Umarai. P.Ws. Mst. Nursheda and Mst. Jamsheda also came out of the house and within their sight the petitioner fired two shots with tamancha at Gulfaraz, out of which one hit the deceased. The petitioner fled away. The ladies took Gulfaraz injured inside the house. Mst. Hawa Jan hurried to lodge the F. I. R. At Police Station, Sadar, which was lodged at about 3-30 p.m. A. S. I. Mir Afzal Khan P.W. 11 went to the spot to make investigation. He found Gulfaraz lying injured in his house. He sent Gulfaraz to the Hospital for medical examination and treatment. Later on, he learnt that Gulfaraz had expired in the Hospital. A.
3. S. I. Later on visited Shaheen Bazar, Peshawar City, and arrested the accused-petitioner. He found the accused injured and prepared injury sheet, Exh. P. I.
4. The conviction of the petitioner is based on the evidence of the three eye-witnesses, namely, Mst.
5. Hawa Jan, Mst. Nursheda and Mst. Jamsheda. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that these are interested witnesses and their evidence should not have been accepted for the conviction of the petitioner. This contention was rightly rejected by the Courts below because they are natural witnesses. The occurrence took place just in front of their house and it was quite natural that they would come out from' the house after the deceased was called out by an adversary. The First Information Report was also lodged promptly. This is a broad daylight murder and, therefore, the three ladies would not. Implicate a false person for the alleged crime. It is quite correct that some of these witnesses had made improvements and made exaggerations but their statements appear to be of truthful witnesses and, therefore, reliance was rightly placed on them. Sh.
6. Muhammad Shafi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner bore a blunt weapon injury on the eye and, therefore, it is possible that the petitioner might have acted in self- defence. This contention has not impressed us. The petitioner was arrested after some time of the occurrence at his house in Shaheen Bazar, Peshawar City and it cannot be ruled out that the injury on his eye was self-inflicted. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are more in relation to the appreciation of the evidence. There is no ground to interfere in this matter.
7. The petition is dismissed.