1. SALAHUDDIN ARMED, J.-This appeal is by special (cave. Leave was granted by this Court to consider whether tie High Court acted upon principles consistent with the safe dispensation of Criminal Justice in maintaining tile conviction of tits appellant upon the evidence of a solitary eye- witness who appeared to be a mere chance witness and possessed only one good eye.
2. Appellant Irshad alias Shada has been convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death.
3. The prosecution case is that just before the occurrence Bohra deceased had deposed against the appellant in a criminal case under section 379/411 of the Pakistan Penal Code before the Cantonment Magistrate. The case was still pending when the appellant out of revenge mortally wounded Bahra with a knife on March 6, 1967, at 4-30 p.m. In the Main Bazar, Kumharpura, in front of the shop of Soofi Abdul Haq. The deceased was injured on the back, on the front side of the neck, and on the back of his right shoulder. He walked some distance and then fell down dead. The occurrence was witnessed by 3 witnesses viz. P. W. 3, Abdul Ghani, P. W. 5 Muhammad Sharif alias Haji and P. W. 7, Sajjad Hussain all residents of the locality. P. W. Sajjad went and .Informed P. W. 8, Salamat, brother of the deceased, and the latter naturally first went to the spot where the deceased was lying and then went to Police Station Moghalpura at a distance of 1 mile, and lodged the First Information Report the same day at 5-15 p.m. The Investigating Officer arrived at the spot soon and took into possession blood-stained earth from two different places, viz. Where the deceased had been assaulted and where he finally collapsed.
4. On the 6th March 1967, at. 8 p.m. The appellant was produced before the Inspector of Police, P. W.
5. 14, and a blood-stained shirt, Exh. P. 1 and a blood-stained dhoti, Exh. P. 2 were recovered from the person of the former in the presence of P. W. 12, Imam Din. Two days after, while in custody, the appellant led to the recovery of a blood-stained chhuri Exh. P. 3 from the roof of his house. The clothes and the chhuri were subsequently found by the Chemical Examiner to contain human blood.
6. The appellant pleaded not guilty, and denied the prosecution allegations against him. He also denied the recoveries of the aforesaid incriminating articles. His defence was that he had been falsely implicated by P. W. Salamat, brother of the deceased, because of a quarrel between him and the appellant two days before the occurrence. Furthermore, that P. W. Salamat has enmity with the people of the locality, particularly the Kumhars, and some of the enemies may have killed his brother.
7. P. W. 7, Sajjad Hussain, whose evidence alone has been relied on by the High Court has fully supported the prosecution case implicating the appellant in the murder of Bohra. The witness lives about 1/2 furlong from the place of occurrence and at digarwela he had gone to the shop of Muhammad Akram to purchase cigarettes. P. W. Sajjad is absolutely independent and disinterested and has been mentioned in the First Information Report. He is not related to the deceased and there is no sugges--tion of any enmity against the appellant. The High Court has rightly disregarded the criticism that he was a mere chance witness. As has been noticed already he lived hardly 1/2 furlong from the place of occurrence and be had come out to purchase cigarette. P. W. 14, Inspector Ahmad Nawaz Niazi examined the witness at the spot on the same day.
8. The evidence of P. W. Sajjad has received full support from the recovery of the aforesaid incriminating articles from the possession of the appellant. The evidence of recovery has been furnished by P. W. 12, Imam Din, a member of Basic Democracy, and the two police officers viz. P. W.
9. 13, S. I. Muhammad Ibrahim and P. W. 14, Inspector Ahmad Nawaz Niazi. This is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the recovery of incriminating articles.
10. In our opinion the learned Judges of the High Court rightly disagreed with the trial Judge and relied on the evidence of recovery of the blood-stained knife. The knife was recovered from the roof of the house of the appellant on his showing.
11. It is true that P. W. Sajjad said that he could see with his left eye only and that eye too was slightly weak. The occurrence took place in the open in broad daylight and the witness appeared to know the appellant. There is no suggestion that it wag not possible for the witness to see the occurrence or recognise the assailant. In these circumstances we do not think there is any doubt about the recognition of the appellant by P. W. Sajjad.
12. We, therefore, find that P. W. Sajjad is a reliable witness and his evidence has been rightly relied on by the High Court.
13. The Courts below, for good reasons, refused to believe the defence case. P. W. Salamat has categorically denied the story of quarrel with the appellant and that he falsely implicated the appellant due to vengeance.
14. As regards the sentence of death, we do not find any extenuating circumstance to commute the sentence. The appel--lant was a motor mechanic and he appeared to have given his age before the committing Magistrate as 25 years. Before the learned Sessions Judge, however, he gave his age as 16 years but the learned Judge wrote that the appellant appeared to be 20 years. It has not been suggested to any witness that the appellant is 16 years.
15. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in any way with the order of the High Court.
16. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.