1. M. R. KHAN, J.--The petitioner and his two brothers were convicted under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for having committed the murder of Muhammad Aslam and sentenced to transportation for life, each. On appeal, the High Court gave the benefit of doubt to the petitioner's brothers and acquitted them, but maintained his conviction and sentence.
2. Sometime before the occurrence on the 20th May 1968, Muhammad Aslam, deceased went to the shop of the petitioner's father Dalil Khan to purchase tobacco where Mst. Ghulam Zohra, the sister of the petitioner was looking after the sale. It was alleged that the deceased misbehaved with Mst.
3. Ghulam Zohra which offended the petitioner and his brothers. They demanded the hand of the deceased's sister by way of settlement. This was not agreed to. Thereupon, the petitioner and his brothers went to the house of Muhammad Aslam, deceased at digarwela on the date of occurrence. The petitioner, who was then armed with a gun, fired at Muhammad Aslam which caused his instan--taneous death. The shots said to have been fired by the peti--tioner's brothers missed the deceased. On these allegations, the petitioner and his brothers were tried for the offence of murder the dead body of Muhammad Aslam found one fire arm injury in the neck of the deceased, which, in his opinion, was sufficient to cause death. The petitioner and his co-accused pleaded innocence and alleged that they were falsely implicated out of enmity.
4. The occurrence took place during the day time and it was witnessed by 4 witnesses, namely, Isab Khan (P. W. 6), Shah Wali Khan (P. W. 7), Sikander Khan (P. W. 8) and Ahmad Khan (P. W. 9). Of them, P. W. 6 is the father of the deceased and P. W. 7 is his cousin. The other two P. Ws. Are brothers-in- law of the deceased. Relying on their evidence, the trial Court convicted all the three accused persons including the petitioner. The High Court, however, distinguished the case of the petitioner from that of his co-accused and maintained his conviction and acquitted the others. The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's case was not properly distinguished from that of his co-accused. The evidence on record is that it was the petitioner's shot that hit the neck of the deceased. The deceased had no other injury. The shots said to have been fired by the co-accused missed the target. The evidence against the petitioner was thus positive and definite.
6. So, the petitioner's case stood at a different level.
7. Learned counsel next contends that all the eye-witnesses being closely related to the deceased, their evidence should not have been relied on without corroboration. The eye-witnesses were the most natural witnesses in this case, and both the Court believed their evidence. Of them, P. W. 7 tried to be helpful to the accused at the trial. Accordingly, his statement in the committing Court was transferred under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The medical evidence supports the prosecution version. Besides, the petitioner absconded for about 9 months and was arrested on the 10th February 1969. Thus the evidence of the eye-witnesses was not without corroboration altogether and was sufficient to bring home the charge.
8. The last contention of the learned counsel is that there was a wall around the courtyard of the deceased's house up to man's height for which no shot could have been fired. According to the site plan, the fatal shot was fired from point 2 which was to the west of the courtyard. No wall have been shown on the plan between point 2 and the courtyard. So, this contention also has no substance.
9. The petition is dismissed.