1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioner Fazal Dad was tried under section 302, P. P. C, for the murder of Mst. Sahib Khatoon on the 9th August 1967, at about Peshiwela in the area of village Chamcha, District Campbellpur, about 10 miles from the police station. The learned Sessions Judge, Campbellpur, by judgment dated the 7th June 1969, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to death. The petitioner challenged his conviction Criminal Appeal No. III of 1969 before division Bench of the West Pakistan High Court, Peshawar Bench. The learned Judges of the High Court, by judgment dated the 2nd February 1970, dismissed the appeal and confirmed t ho death sentence.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner Fazal Dad had been demanding the hand of Mst. Sahib Khatoon from her father Karam Hussain which was refused. He had also expressed his desire to Mst. Sahib Khatoon but she had also refused. It is alleged that on the 9th August 1967, Karam Hussain had gone to his field. Alam Din P. W. 9 and his paternal aunt Mst. Sahib Khatoon had gone to the Dhok of Mst. Fatima. At about peshiwela both of them were returning to their house at village Chamcha. When they reached near the field of Sultan Mahmood Lambardar, the petitioner armed with chhuri came from a bush and asked Mst. Sahib Khatoon to marry him. She rejected the demand immediately. Thereupon, the petitioner attacked Mst. Sahib Khatoon. The deceased ran to save her life but was overtaken by the petitioner who gave her two chhuri blows in her back. The petitioner further inflicted 5/6 more injuries to her from the front. Mst. Sahib Khatoon fell down. On the outcry of Alam Din, P. W. 10 Siraj Din and P. W. 11 Muhammad Ramzan, who were at that time ploughing the field of Sultan Mahmood Lambardar, came on the scene of occurrence. The petitioner ran away. Alam Din left Mst. Sahib Khatoon at the spot under the care of Siraj Din and Muhammad Ramzan P. Ws. He went and apprised Karam Hussain in the field where he was grazing his cattle. Karam Hussain came to the scene of occurrence and found his daughter in injured condition. Mst. Sahib Khatoon, the injured, on enquiry told her father that Fazal Dad was responsible for cmising her the chhuri blows. This was said in the presence of P Ws Siraj Din and Muhammad Ramzan. Karam Hussain then went to the Dhok of Sultan Mahmood Lambardar but he could not find him present. He again came to the scene of occurrence. A cot was brought on which Mst.
3. Sahib Khatoon was placed and \% as taken towards Police Station. She was taken on cot up to Pichnand at a distance of about 5/6 miles from Chamcha. From there she was taken into a bus but she expired on the way to the Police Station. On the 12th August 1967, petitioner Fazal Dad was produced before the Head Constable Abdur Razaq by his father Mohammad Ramzan. After the petitioner's arrest he was interrogated by the Head Constable. He led the Head Constable to his house from where at his instance the Head Constable recovered the chhuri Exh. P. 1, shirt, Exh. P. 8 and chaddar, Exh. P.-9 which belonged to him. All the three articles were found blood-stained by the Serologist.
4. The defence of the petitioner is of bare denial. He dis--claimed the recovery of blood-stained chhuri, Exh. P. 1, shirt, Exh. P. 8 and chaddar, Exh. P.
9. In the explanation of charge, he alleged that the deceased was killed by his brother who suspected her to have eloped with some body. He further stated that there was enmity between him and Sultan Mahmood Lambardar and he has been falsely implicated at his instance.
5. The conviction of the petitioner is based on the testimony of Alam Din supported by the evidence of P. W. 11 Muhammad Ramzan. It is also supported by the recovery of blood-stained Chhuri, Exh. P. 1, blood-stained shirt, Exh. P. 8 and blood-stained chaddar, Exh. P. 9, recovered at the instance of the petitioner from his house. The recoveries were witnessed by Rahim Dad P. W. 6 and deceased witness Muhammad Ramzan son of Alif Din.
6. Sh. Abdul Hayee Mansur Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that there has been inordinate delay in the lodging of the F. I. R. He has further contended that Alam Din was an interested witness. That no reliance should have been placed on the evidence of P. W. Muhammad Ramzan as he was a tenant of Sultan Mahmood Lambardar, who was on inimical terms with the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. There was no inordinate delay in the lodging of the F. I. R. The explanation of Karam Hussain is that after visiting the place of occurrence he went to the Dhok of Sultan Mahmood Lambardar and as he was not there he returned to the scene of occurrence. From there, Mst. Sahib Khatoon was taken on a cot to Pichnand and from there she seas, taken in a bus to the Police Station. This sufficiently explains the time taken for lodging the First Information Report.
7. The evidence of Alam Din was rightly believed by the Courts below. His presence on the scene of occurrence was natural. Usually women-folk are accompanied by the male members of the family and it is not surprising that Alam Din was with Mst. Sahib Khatoon when she returned from the Dhok of Mst. Fatima, sister of Karam Hussain. His evidence also receives support from the medical evidence. Injuries were found on Mst. Sahib Khatoon on the back of her body. The evidence of this witness is further corroborated by the recovery of blood--stained chhuri, blood-stained shirt, and blood-stained chaddar, recovered at the instance of the petitioner. Tic questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are more about the appreciation of the evidence. In our opinion, the evidence has been properly appreciated by the Courts below. No case has been made out to interfere in this matter. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.