1. ' ANWARU1 HAQ, J.-- The petitioner Saleem and his co-accused, Lal and Sadiq, were sentenced to death and also ordered to pay a fine of Rs,1,000 each by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, for the murder of one Mst. Barkate, sister of Jan Muhammad (P.W.7) and wife of Muhammad Shafi (P.W.9). They were also convicted, and variously sentenced, under sections 323 and 325, P.P.C. Read with section 34, thereof, for causing injuries to Jan Muhammad (P.W.7), Mst.
2. Irshatl (P.W.8) and Muhammad Shafi (P.W.9). In appeal and confirmation proceedings, the convictions of all the three accused under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 34 thereof were set aside; and the death sentences were also not confirmed. The petitioner Saleem was instead convicted under Part I of section 304, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs,500, which was to be paid as compensation to the husband of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. His conviction and sentence under section 323/34, P.P.C. For causing simple injuries to Jan Muhammad was maintained. His conviction under section 323/34, P.P.C. For causing simple injuries to witness Muhammad Shafi was set aside, and so was his conviction under section 325/34, P.P.C. For causing injuries to Mst. Irshad Begum. Instead he was held individually responsible only under section 323, for causing simple injury to this lady, and sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment. The co-accused Lal and Sadiq were held individually responsible under section 323, P.P.C. Only on two counts for causing injuries to Jan Muhammad, Shafi and their sentences were appropriately altered.
3. ' The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal. It appears that his co-accused Lal and Sadiq have accepted the order of the High Court.
4. ' The incident is said to have occurred at about 4 p.m. On 22-3-1972, in the area of Chak No,32/GB, Police Station Satiana in the district of Lyallpur. However, the matter was not reported at the police station until 6-30 a.m. On the following day for the reason that besides the deceased, three other members of the complainant family had also sustained injuries, and they did not dare to move out of village during the hours of darkness as they apprehended further harm at the hands of the accused persons.
5. ' About a year before the present occurrence the petitioner Saleem had received a beating at the hands of Jan Muhammad (P.W.7) and his wife Mst. Irshad (P.W.8) and a case had been registered against them under section 307, P.P.C. It was alleged at the trial that the petitioner and his companions had attacked the complainant party to avenge the beating previously given by them to the petitioner.
6. ' At the relevant time Jan Muhammad was present in the lane outside his house alongwith his wife Mst.Irshad, while his sister Mst. Barkate deceased and her husband Shafi were inside the house. The petitioner armed with a hatchet, and his companions armed with dangs, came there and launched an attack on Jan Muhammad with their respective weapons. Mst. Irshad came forward to rescue her husband and was given blows by the petitioner and Lal. On hearing the alarm the deceased and her husband came out of the house to intervene, but the petitioner inflicted a hatchet blow on the head of Mst. Barkate from the wrong side of the hatchet. Sadiq is then said to have given a dang blow to Mst. Barkate's husband Shafi. Mst. Barkate became unconscious and died at about mid-night.
7. ' The petitioner was arrested on the 24th of March, 1972, and a hatchet was also recovered at his instance. As however, there were no blood-stains on the hatchet, it was not forwarded to the Serologist for Chemical Examination, and has not been relied upon by the prosecution.
8. ' Both the Courts below have believed the ocular evidence given by Jan Muhammad (P.W.7), Mst.
9. Irshad (P.W.8), and Muhammad Shafi (P.W.9) even though they were closely related inter se as well as to the deceased. They have also accepted the assertion of the prosecution that the petitioner had a motive to assault Jan Muhammad. They have rejected the defence contention that the incident took place in the middle of the night and, therefore, the witnesses were not in a position to identify the assailants. The High Court has also dealt at length with the question of delay in making the F.I.R. And has observed that the complainant party being poor nomads, and pitched against the Zamindars of the locality, did not dare travel to the police station during the hours of darkness immediately after the incident. Finally, the learned Judges in the High Court have observed that the presence of injuries on the person of the three eye-witnesses fully confirmed their participation in the incident.
10. ' Leave to appeal is sought on the following grounds:-
(a) That the first information report was highly belated, and was in fact made at the spot on the arrival of the Investigating Officer, and therefore, no reliance could be placed upon it; and
(b) That the prosecution witnesses did not see as to which of the accused persons had caused the fatal injury on the head of the deceased, and, therefore the High Court was in error in fixing this responsibility on the petitioner.
11. We have already observed that the High Court was fully conscious of the fact that the F.I.R. Was made with considerable delay, but the learned Judges were satisfied with the explanation given in this behalf by the prosecution. We see no reason to differ from the views taken by the Courts below on this account. The incident had taken place only a short time before sunset, and during this incident Mst. Barkate had sustained a dangerous injury on her head which had made her unconscious, and three other members of her family had also sustained both simple and grievous injuries. If, in these circumstances, Jan Muhammad did not set out for the police station during the night, it cannot be said that his explanation was not plausible or acceptable. There is no warrant on the record for the supposition that the injured members of the family had falsely substituted the present petitioner or his companions for the real culprits.
12. ' The contention that the witnesses had not seen as to who had caused the fatal injury on the head of the deceased cannot be supported on the record. It is true that Mst. Irshad was not in a position to give a categorical answer on this point, but we find that Muhammad Shafi (P.W.9) was in no doubt about the identity of the petitioner. The hatchet injury, from its blunt side, is attributed to the petitioner. The Courts below have accepted this part of the evidence and we see no reason to differ from that view.
13. ' As a result, we are of the view that the petitioner has been rightly convicted and sentenced, and no justification is made out for or interference in the matter. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.