ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This petition by Muhammad Yousaf alias Rangeela Butt is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 23-2-1980, confirming his death sentence in a case under section 302, P. P. C.
2 The facts leading to this petition are, briefly, that Muhammad Yousaf petitioner was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, along with his brother Muhammad Bashir and one Liaqat for the murder of Ashiq Ali, who he acquitted Muhammad Bashir and Liaqat (co-accused) but convicted Muhammad Yousaf petitioner under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced him to death and a fine of Rs. 4,000 or in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further R.
1. For six months.
Muhammad Yousaf petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court against his conviction and sentence, while the complainant filed a revision petition against the acquittal of Muhammad Bashir and Liaqat, co-accused. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed his death sentence. It also dismissed the revision petition filed by the complainant by its judgment dated 23- 2-1980.
Hence the present petition.
3. The occurrence in which Muhammad Yousaf stabbed the deceased to death with a dagger took place in Nai Abadi Ramgarh, Mughalpura Lahore on 19-9-1977 at 7 p. m. The F.
1. R. Was lodged by Hassan Din (complainant) (P. W. 3 father of the deceased) at 7-30 p.m. At Police Station Mughalpura. It was recorded by Muhammad Abbas, Inspector Police (P. W. 12).
According to the prosecution Muhammad Bashir (acquitted co-accused) owed some money to Asbiq Ali deceased: About six days prior to the occurrence the deceased demanded the return of money which led to abuses and altercation between Muhammad Bashir and the deceased. The deceased gave a slap to Muhammad Bashir but they were separated by the people present there.
At about 6 p.m. On the day of occurrence when Hassan Din (complainant) was present at his house along with his son Ashiq Ali (deceased) and Muhammad Akram (P. W. 5), Muhammad Yousaf petitioner, Muhammad Bashir and Goga (Liaqat) co-accused came there and challenged Ashiq Ali to come out. They also threw some brickbats on the house of the com--plainant. Abdul Majeed (P. W. 4) intervened and pacified them. The three accused went away but they again returned at about 7 p.m. Hassan Din and Muhammad Akram, were inside the house but Ashiq Ali (deceased) was sitting at the; outer door.
On seeing him the accused raised lalkaras, on hearing which Hassan Din and Muhammad Akram, P. Ws., rushed there. Muhammad Bashir caught hold of Ashiq Ali (deceased) in his japha, while Muhammad Yousaf petitioner gave him a dagger blow on his chest. Muhammad Akram (P. W. 5) tried to rescue his brother but Liaqat alias Goga caught hold of him. In the meanwhile Abdul Majeed (P. W. 5) and Munir Ahmad (D. W. 1) turned up at the place of occurrence. On seeing them the accused ran away. Ashiq Ali (deceased) was taken to the hospital in an injured condition but died in the way.
During the investigation Muhammad Abbas (P. W. 12) took into posses--sion some blood-stained earth from the spot, arrested Muhammad Yousaf petitioner and also recovered the dagger (P. 3) from him.
4. At the trial prosecution relied on the ocular testimony of Hassan Din (P. W. 3-father of the deceased)-Abdul Majeed (P. W. 4-maternal uncle of the deceased) and Muhammad Akram (P. W.
5-brother of the deceased). Munir Ahmad was mentioned in the F. I. R. As a witness but was given up as won over but he was subsequently produced by the defence as D. W.
1. The accused denied their guilt and pleaded innocence. According to the defence version the occurrence took place somewhere else and none of the eye-witnessess relied upon by the prosecution had witnessed the incident. In support of this plea it produced Munir Ahmad, as D. W. 1 and Muhammad Sadiq, D. W. 2.
5. We have gone through the judgments of the two Courts below as well .As the evidence on the record, with the help of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The learned counsel has adverted our attention to certain discrepancies in the evidence of the P.
Ws. And also contended that there is an inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony. But having fully considered the matter we are of the view that the learned counsel has not been able to point out misreading of any material portion of evidence on the record or any gross misappreciation thereof by learned Courts below. A such we do not consider this to be a fit case for reappraisal of evidence. The petition is consequently, dismissed.