ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.-- Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 702 of 2018 in Criminal Petition No. 396 of 2018 The main petition filed to the appellant is hopelessly barred by time but because the main petition has been filed against the applicant's conviction and sentence in a case of murder, therefore, in the interests of justice the delay in filing of the main petition is condoned. Disposed of.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 703 of 2018 in Criminal Petition No. 396 of 2018
2. This miscellaneous application is allowed in the terms prayed for therein. Disposed of.
Criminal Petition No. 396 of 2018
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have perused the relevant record of the case with his assistance.
4. The parties to this case were very closely related to each other and an FIR in respect of the incident in issue had been lodged within an hour of the occurrence. In the said promptly lodged FIR the petitioner had been named and a leading role in the murder of Safdar Khan deceased and in causing of injuries to Wazir Khan complainant (PW-15) was attributed to him. The injured victim namely Wazir Khan complainant (PW-15) had consistently pointed his accusing finger towards the petitioner as the person responsible for causing the death of Safdar Khan deceased and for causing injuries to the complainant himself and the medical evidence had supported the said allegations leveled by the complainant against the petitioner. Both the courts below had undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the evidence available on the record and had then concurred in their conclusion regarding guilt of the petitioner having been proved to the hilt and upon our own independent evaluation of the evidence we have not been able to take a view of the matter different from that concurrently taken by the courts below. The High Court had acquitted the petitioner on two counts of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. and had also reduced the sentence of death passed against the petitioner on the third count of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C, to imprisonment for life and, thus, the petitioner has already been treated leniently by the High Court. The delay of about seven and a half years in filing of the present petition before this Court shows that the petitioner had accepted the verdict passed against him by the High Court. For all these reasons this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Criminal Petitions Nos. 19-P and 20-P of 2011
5. Respondent No. 1 in both these petitions was convicted by the trial court on three counts of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. and was sentenced to death on each count besides having been convicted and sentenced for offences under sections 324 and 337-A(ii), P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. but on appeal he was acquitted by the High Court on two counts of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. whereas his sentence of death on the third count of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. was reduced to imprisonment for life. The convictions and sentences of respondent No. 1 for the offences under sections 324 and 337-A(ii), P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. were, however, maintained by the High Court. Hence, the present petitions before this Court.
6. As regards the acquittal of respondent No. 1 from two counts of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. pertaining to the murders of Itbar Khan and Asad Ali deceased the High Court had concluded that the record of the case had established that all the three eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution, i.e. Wazir Khan complainant (PW-15), Aqil Khan (PW-16) and Darwaish Khan (PW-17) were not in a position to see the second part of the incident in which Itbar Khan and Asad Ali deceased had been killed. It had also been noticed by the High Court that the said two murders had been committed in the shop of one Ghani Sher but the said eye- witness had been given up by the prosecution as having been won over meaning thereby that he was not ready to support the case of the prosecution in that respect. For reduction of respondent No. l's sentence of death on the third count of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. pertaining to the murder of Safdar Khan deceased the High Court had noticed that the incident forming the motive already stood patched up and the immediate cause of occurrence had been suppressed by the parties to the case and in that backdrop the High Court had decided to exercise caution in the matter of respondent No, l 's sentence of death on that count of the charge, The reasons recorded by the High Court for acquitting respondent No.1 from two counts of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. and for reduction of respondent No. l's sentence on the third count of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. have been found by us to be valid and grounded in the record of the case. No misreading of the record by the High Court has been pointed out before us, No Jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning on the part of the High Court has been highlighted before us so as to warrant interference in the impugned Judgment passed by the High Court. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused therein.