MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--This ;ail petition is barred by the by 16 days as sentence of death has been awarded to Hakim Ali petitioner, we, therefore, condone the delay.
2. On 21-9-1979 Qutba P.W. Lodged F.I.R. Exh. P.K. At Police Station Malka Hans that he, alongwith his wife Mst. Mahran, daughters Mst. Sheeman, deceased and Mst. Sabran and his brother-in-law Khan son of Ahmad, were coming from Chak No.99/D to their Chak No.90/D after participating in the marriage of one Riaz at about Dopaharwela. As soon as the complainant Qutba and the aforesaid persons reached near Zakhira, Hakim, Mehram and Lai, armed with hatchets at Dar& armed with a Sota. Emerged raising Lalkara "Mst. Sheeman would not be spared today." Hakim and Lai accused /petitioners, started giving hatchet blows to Mst. Sheeman deceased who fell in a Khal after receiving hatchet blows and thereafter all the aforementioned four accused petitioners dealt numerous blows to the fallen Mst. Sheeman with their respective weapons. Mst. Mehran P.W. Went ahead to rescue the deceased whereupon Dara accused inflicted Sota blows on her arms and she felt to the ground and thereafter Hakim and Mehram accused inflicted hatchet blows on the head of Mst. Mehran while Lai accused inflicted hatchet blows on the head of Khan, P.W. And Hakim accused /petitioner also dealt blows with hatchet on his right hand and brought him down to the ground. The complainant Qutba and his daughter Mst. Sabran. Who were at a distance 10/15 paces behind, witnessed the occurrence and raised alarm, whereupon the accused ran away. The deceased Mst Sheeman succumbed to her injuries soon after
3. It is alleged that motive behind the crime was that a month and a half prior to the occurrence, accused Hakim, Mehram and Dara accused went to the house of the complainant and sought the hand of Mst. Sheeman for Hakim accused /petitioner but Qutba, complainant refused whereupon the accused/ petitioners threatened him and left. Mst. Sheemar was then engaged to Muhammad Hussain son of Khan, P.W. And her marriage was to be solemnized on the 14th of lunar month. The accused petitioners bearing this grudge in their minds, murdered Mst. Sheeman and attacked Mst.
Mehran and Khan son of Ahmad, P.W.
4. Report Exh. P.K. Was recorded by Muhammad Tufail, P.W.15 who was then A.S.I at the Police Station, Malka Hans, District Sahiwal He then visited the spot and took blood-stained earth from the place where the body of Mst. Sheeman was lying, and also from the place where Mst. Mehran was injured and also from the spot where Khan, P.W. Was injured vide recovery memo. Exh. P.T. And sealed it into parcel. He also prepared the injury statement of Mst. Sheeman Exh P.V. And inquest report Exh. P.X. And Exh. P.X/1 and sent the dead body of Mst. Sheeman for post-mortem examination.
5. Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed P.W. 3, who examined the dead body of Mst. Sheeman on 22-9-1979 found as many as 30 injuries on different parts of her body, which were caused by sharp-edged weapon.
According to him, cause of her death was shock, haemorrhage and cutting of spinal cord. Injury No.1 was termed as fatal and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course- of nature. Rest of the injuries were grievous, while injury No.9 was found to have been caused by blunt weapon.
6. Dr. Nazir Ahmad P.W. 2 examined Mst. Mehran and found an incised wound 3" x 1/4" on the right side of her head; a bruise 2" x 1" on her right wrist and an abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" with swelling. Injury 3 was grievous and she was referred for X-Ray. X-Ray Report revealed that injury 2 was also grievous while injury 1 was simple.
7. Dr. Nazir also examined Khan and found five incised wounds of various dimensions; an abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on forehead; bruise 3.1/2" x 1" on right thigh and swelling 3" x 2" on right forearm. Injury No.5 was found to be grievous and rest of the injuries were kept under observation. According to X-Ray report injury No.7 was also found to be grievous and there was fracture of the lower end of the right ulna.
8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Vth Sahiwal found all the accused guilty and awarded death sentence to Hakim accused /petitioner under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. And fine of Rs.3,000, in default, R.I for six months. Half of the amount of fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the heirs of Mst. Sheeman deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
Other accused Mehram, Lai and Dara were sentenced to life imprisonment each with a fine of Rs.3,000 each, in default, to undergo R.I. For six months each. Half of the amount of fine, if realized, was ordered to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. All the accused were also convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. For the attempted murder of Khan, P.W. And were sentenced to undergo R.I for five years' R.I each and fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default, each one of them shall undergo R.I for further period of three months. Half of the amount of fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Khan the injured P.W. All the accused were further convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. For the attempted murder of Mst. Mehran P.W. And were sentenced to undergo R.I for five years each and a fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default, each one of them shall undergo R.I for further 3 months. Half of the amount of fine, in case of recovery, was ordered to be paid to Mst. Mehran the injured P.W. As compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. All the substantive sentences under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P.P.C. Were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal filed by the accused /petitioners was dismissed by the learned High Court vide the impugned judgment. It may be mentioned here that out of the four convicts, named above, only Hakim has filed this jail petition, and none by the rest of the convicts. In the impugned judgment of the High Court the learned Judges observed as follows: "In this case of promptly lodged F.I.R all the appellants were named with the description of the weapons used by them. This was a daylight occurrence which had taken place at about one Pehar of the day when identification of the appellants could not be mistaken. All the four eye-witnesses are natural witnesses of the occurrence because the appellants caused murder of the deceased outside the Abadi of the Chak and the spot is not claimed to be surrounded by the Abadi. It was not suggested that other witnesses were available but were not examined. Mst. Mehran and Khan P.Ws.
Are injured witnesses whose presence at the spot cannot be doubted. The discrepancies pointed out in the testimony of the eye-witnesses are not on any material point. The medical evidence disclosed sharp as well as blunt weapon injuries on the deceased and the injured prosecution witnesses which fully supports the prosecution case that Dara appellant with Sota and rest of the appellants with hatchets caused these injuries. We are satisfied that all the four eye-witnesses truthfully deposed about the occurrence. Their testimony was rightly relied upon by the trial Court.
We find that the conviction of the appellants can be maintained on the ocular account given by them."
Hakim the accused /petitioner stated that Jamal Dhaku had illicit connection with Mst. Mehran and both of the them were once caught by him in a compromising position. Jamal is a big Zamindar and had influence with the Police and he got this case fabricated against him. This reas'6n is hardly acceptable. Qutba, complainant, as already admitted, is real uncle of the accused /petitioner. We do not find any reason for false implication of the accused /petitioner in this case. Petition' being without any merit, is, consequently, dismissed.