1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, J.-- The petitioner Khalid Javed was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot, for the murder of one Tanveer Ahmad, and sentenced to death. In appeal, the learned Judges of the High Court maintained his conviction, but reduced the sentence to that of imprisonment for life on the ground that the petitioner was of young age, and there was no element of premeditation on his part. He now seeks special leave to appeal against this order of the High Court.
2. ' The occurrence took place at 2.30 p.m. On Eid day which fell on the 20th November, 1971. The petitioner and his brother Tariq Javed (who was also tried in this case but acquitted) had gone to the shop of one Abdullah, the elder brother of the deceased Tanveer Ahmad, and demanded a glass from the deceased for drinking liquor. The deceased refused to oblige, whereupon Tariq Javed and the deceased grappled with each other. While they were grappling, the petitioner took out a knife from the folds of his Shalwar and inflicted injuries on the chest of the deceased. The deceased was carried to the Allem lqbal Hospital where he made a statement accusing the petitioner of having inflicted the knife injuries. The deceased died seven days later on the 27th of November, 1971.
3. ' At the trial the prosecution placed reliance on dying statement of the deceased as well as the eye-witness account furnished by Ahsanullah Akbar (P.W.3) and Muhammad Salim (P.W.4) who were sitting at the shop of Abdullah at the time of the occurrence, and had taken the deceased to the hospital after he had been injured. The prosecution also relied on the recovery of the blood- stained knife, which was effected on the 21st of November 1971 at the instance of the petitioner. The knife was found to be stained with human bicod. The Courts below have accepted this evidence.
4. ' Leave to appeal is sought on the grounds that the eye-witnesses were men of shady character, and their evidence could not, therefore, have been accepted without satisfactory corroboration; that the learned Judges in this High Court have not applied their own mind in appraising the evidence but have merely relied on the appreciation of the trial Judge in paras. 15 and 16 of his judgment; that in any case the alleged eye-witnesses were residents of another Mohallah and their presence at the shop of the brother of the deceased had not been fully explained. It is next submitted that even if the evidence is believed, the case would fall under Exception 4 to section 300, P.P.C. For the reason that in the dying statement only one knife blow was attributed to the petitioner, although the medical evidence disclosed three such blows on the chest.
5. ' We see no merit in these submissons.
6. ' As to the character of the eye-witnesses, it was suggested that Ahsanullah Akbar (P.W.3) had been arrested by the Military authorities in 1965 on the suspicion that he was indulging in smuggling, but there is nothing to show that he was convicted of any such offence. The learned counsel conceded that he was not convicted but submitted that this man was also involved in a case under section 307, P.P.C. Here against, there has been no conviction so far and the case is pending. A similar objection is urged against the other eye-witness, namely, Muhammad Salim and his case is also pending. It is clear to us that the involvement of these two witnesses in separate cases, under section 307, P.P.C. Which cases are still pending, cannot lead to the inference that their evidence in this case needs corroboration. Those cases have no connection with the parties to the present incident. Their names have been mentioned by the deceased at the earliest opportunity, and we see no reason to doubt their presence at the spot. They have no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner.
7. The argument that the learned Judges have not themselves appraised the evidence is misconceived, Mere reference to certain paragraphs of the judgment of the trial Court, and the agreement of the learned Judges with the views expressed by the trial Court therein, does not mean that the High Court has not applied its own mind in the matter.
8. ' We consider, therefore, that there is no reason for us to interfere with the appraisal of evidence by the Courts below. They have rightly concluded that the fatal injuries were caused by the petitioner.
9. ' As to the nature of the offence, it is clear that the petitioner took undue advantage of the deceased by inflicting knife blows on him, when the deceased was unarmed, and there was no possibility of his causing any serious harm to the brother of the petitioner during the grappling which was going on between them. An essential ingredient of Exception 4 is, therefore, missing in this case. The Courts below were right in taking the view that the offence committed by the petitioner fell under section 302, P.P.C. The High Court has already given him the benefit of his young age, and of the fact that there was no premeditation on his part.
10. ' For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.