' M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, under section 302, P.P.C. Of the murder of Iftikhar Ahmad deceased and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs,6,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. For two years, 2/3rd of the fine if realized being payable as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. His appeal before the Peshawar High Court failed on 25-5-1983 though benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was given to him. He now seeks leave to appeal.
2. The petition is barred by three days, for the condonation of which illness of the counsel has been taken as a ground in the application moved for the purpose. The delay is condoned.
3. The petitioner is said to have come armed with a .12 bore gun at about 9-15 a.m. On 20-6-1978 to the field of the deceased which the latter was ploughing and to have shot him dead within the seeing of Mst. Karam Jan, mother, Aurangzeb, maternal-uncle, and Muhammad Arshad son of a maternal-uncle of the deceased. Nazir P.W. Who was cutting a Kangar tree in his field nearby at that time, also saw the occurrence, and on rushing to the spot put the deceased in his lap and thus got his trousers blood-stained. Abdur Rashid, father of the deceased, who was also ploughing land at a short distance, heard report of the gun and saw the petitioner running away with a shotgun in hand. He also heard Mst. Karam Jan wailing that the deceased had been murdered by the petitioner. On going to the spot he found the deceased dead whereafter he went to the police station, where he lodged report at 11 a.m. The motive given in the F.I.R. Was that some time before the occurrence the sister of the petitioner had been abducted, the blame for which was laid on Nisar Ahmad, brother of the deceased.
4. A freshly fired .12 bore empty recovered from the track of retreat of the petitioner some 162 paces from the place of occurrence, matched with the licensed gun of his father which was taken into custody on 23-6-1978. The petitioner who absconded was arrested on 5-1-1980.
5. The case against the petitioner was supported by Abdur Rashid complainant (P.W.9) and Nazir (P.W.10), the medical evidence which showed the presence of a fire-arm entrance wound responsible for the death, the matching of the crime empty with the gun of petitioner's father, motive and his abscondence.
6. The petitioner admitted the story of motive but denied the allegations of murder and of his abscondence.
7. Learned counsel has urged that the police station being only 2-3 miles away, there was delay in lodging the report; that both Abdur Rashid and Nazir are closely related to the deceased; that other eyewitnesses, i,e,, Mst. Karam Jan, Muhammad Arshad and Aurangzeb, had not been examined by the prosecution; that Muhammad Aslam, a Public Prosecutor, who was Phuphizad of the deceased, had influenced the investigation; that Ghulam Sarwar, father of the petitioner, which whose gun the empty had matched, had not been produced and that the empty had been sent to the fire-arm expert well after the recovery of the gun (they had been received by the expert on 2-7-1978 though sent separately). All these points relate to the appreciation of evidence and after going through the record we are satisfied that they had been fully considered and dealt with by both the Courts below. The petitioner is himself related to the complainant inasmuch as the great grandfather of both was the same person. There is nothing to doubt the presence of Nazir (P.W.10) who is the key witness in the case. The police had recovered the cut piece of wood, the saw with which he was cutting the tree at the relevant time and his Shalwar which was stained with blood. There is no reason to doubt the story as given by him and corroborated by Abdur Rashid complainant who was truthful enough to say that he had not seen the shooting but had only seen the petitioner running away with a shot-gun after the firing. It is true that the other eye-witnesses had not been examined but to be fair to the petitioner, Mst. Karam Jan and Muhammad Arshad had been tendered for cross-examination which had been declined in the absence of their examination-in- chief. Although the petitioner had denied his abscondence by saying that he had, during the period, been living A with his father at Lahore, but it is to be noted that the father had produced the gun in connection with the case on 23-6-1978 while the petitioner had been arrested nearly 18 months later. The evidence in regard to his abscondence was duly furnished by Abdur Rashid, F.C.
(P.W. 7), and Gohar Imtiaz, A.S.I. (P.W. 13).
6. We thus find no merit in this petition and accordingly dismiss the same.