MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-This Jail Petition is barred by 9 days but as it involves the sentence of life imprisonment, the delay is condoned.
2. Dost Muhammad petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302, P. P. C. For committing the murder of Rahmat Ali by firing at him with a pistol and then inflicting stab wound on him with a knife on 3-7-1980 at about 11-45 a.m. In a place known as Fazale Maula Masjid Bazar, per judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, dated 28-9-1981. Petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence which was dismissed by the Peshawar High Court vide judgment, dated 7-2-1983. The learned High Court awarded Rs, 5,000, as compensation to be paid to the heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr. P. C.
3. The case against the petitioner was supported by Abdus Salam, P. W. 6 and Muzaffar, P. W.
7. The former was accompanying the deceased at the time of occurrence for the purchase of timber as he needed it for his under construction house. The deceased was a carpenter and in order to select the timber needed for the under construction house he was accompanying Abdus Salam to the market. As they reached near the Fazle Maula Mosque, Charkhana Road, Dost Muhammad petitioner emerged, armed with a tamancha and fired four shots on Rahmat Ali deceased and also inflicted a blow at his chest witn a knife, and made good his escape. Muzaffar, P. W. Also reached the spot soon after the occurrence. Rahmat Ali deceased was still alive and he himself charged the acoused/pelitioner Dost Muhammad as the assailant.
4. Motive for the crime is stated to be the marriage of Mst. Hamida who was previously betrothed to the accused but was, later on, given in marriage to the deceased. The petitioner had absconded from the scene of occurrence and was arrested on 28-9-1980. Finding no merit in the petition I would dismiss the case.
ORDER OF THE BENCH M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The points raised by the petitioner in this present petition are the same as had been raised before the High Court and had been adequately dealt with. I agree that no case is made out for interference with the concurrent finding of the Courts below and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.
' The petition is dismissed.