1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-Petitioners Ghulam and Uris, who are brothers, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana and were sentenced to death under section 302 read with section 34, P. P. C. For the murder of deceased Ghulam Nabi. They challenged this judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1970 (Confirmation Case No. 38 of 1970) and a Division Bench of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dismissed their appeal by judgment dated the 25th August 1971. The petitioners have challenged this judgment in this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. The prosecution case is that on the night preceding the incident at about somhani time, complainant Sher Muhammad was sitting in his house. He heard alarm and cries from his village and wept there P. W., Ghulam Hussain met him there and told him petitioner Uris asked him to allow him to have carnal intercourse with him against the order of nature. He refused to do so and Uris abused him and inflicted him a blow. Deceased Ghulam Nabi was also present there and he also gave the same fact. Deceased Ghulam Nabi further informed him that due to the misbehaviour of Uris he had also abused him and beaten him. Petitioner Uris was also present there. Aftar this, the complainant, both the petitioners, deceased Ghulam Nabi and P. W. Ghulam Hussain visited the otak of Hakim A.I P. W.
7. He is the nekmard of the complainant party. He intervened in the matter.
3. The parties patched up and the complainant party and the petitioners party embraced each other.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners party still had a grudge against the deceased and they have caused his death.
5. The prosecution case further is that on the next day in the morning, complainant and deceased Ghulam Nabi went to their lands in Deh Faridabad. At that time P. Ws. Muhammad Khan and Khairal were cutting grass from their land. The complainant, on reaching there also started cutting grass. Deceased Ghulam Nabi took wooden fork and went to his land and started removing dinghars from his land at about sunrise time. Soon thereafter, the complainant heard cries coming from the side of the deceased. He saw the two petitioners armed with hatchets following the deceased Ghulam Nabi who was coming towards him. When the deceased Ghulam Nabi reached the land of Suleman, the two petitioners overtook him. The petitioners attacked the deceased and inflicted injuries on him with sharp side of the hatchet. The deceased fell down. The complainant, P.
6. W. Muhammad Khan and Khairal raised alarm and reached on the spot. The petitioners escaped from the scene of occurrence and took away the blood--stained hatchets with them. The deceased became unconscious and he was profusely bleeding. The matter was reported to the Police. The Police started investigation in the matter. The petitioners appeared before P. W. Faiz Muhammad, the Head Constable in the otak of P. W. Hakim A.I in village Faridabad. Petitioner Uris had injuries on his body which appeared to have been caused by a blunt weapon. Both the petitioners took the Head Constable and mashirs P. W. Abdullah and A.I Akbar Shah to his house and produced the hatchets. The hatchets were sent to the Chemical Analyser whose report shows that the hatchet produced by Uris was not stained with human blood and the hatchet produced by Ghulam was found to be blood-stained.
7. The prosecution case rests on the oral testimony of three eye-witnesses, namely, Slier Muhammad, P. Ws. Khairal and Muhammad Khan corroborated by P. W. Hakim A.I and further corroborated by the production of blood-stained hatchet by petitioner Ghulam. The prosecution witnesses P. Ws.
8. Sher Muhammad, Khairal and Muhammad Khan substantially supported the prosecution case.
9. They stated that while they were busy in cutting grass from their land, the petitioners attacked the deceased Ghulam Nabi and caused him hatchet injuries as a result of which the deceased subsequently died in the hospital. According to them, it was day time as the incident took, place after sunrise and there was no question of any mistaken identity particularly when the petitioners were already known to the eye--witnesses and their faces were open.
10. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, learned counsel for the peti--tioners, has contended that the statements of the eye-witnesses should not be believed as they were not present on the scene of occurrence. According to the learned counsel P. W. Sher Muhammad is Zamindar and he was not expected to cut grass in his land. The learned counsel further contended that the High Court has overlooked the statement of Tapedar who has stated that P. W. Khairal has no land in Deh Faridabad. According to the learned counsel P. W. Muhammad Khan could not see the occurrence as there was a canal in between the lands of Muhammad Khan and Sher Muhammad. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. The Tapedar has clearly stated that P. W.
11. Sher Muhammad and P. W. Muhammad Khan had their lands in Deh Faridabad. It is true that the Tapedar has stated that Khairal had no land. Even if his statement is excluded there is convincing evidence of P. W. Sher Muhammad and P. W. Muhammad Khan. The learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to satisfy us as to why these two prosecution witnesses have falsely implicated the petitioners.
12. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the peti--tioners that petitioner Uris has a right of self-defence and, there--fore, he should not have been convicted under section 302, P. P. C. In this connection he referred to the two injuries on the body of petitioner Uris. According to the doctor, these injuries were caused by some blunt weapon. The High Court has considered this aspect of the case and observed as under :- "What appears to have happened is that the deceased when attacked by the appellants while he was armed with a wooden fork has caused injuries to the appellant Uris in self-defence. But certainly the deceased was not the aggressor as he could not attack two persons with a wooden weapon while the appellants were armed with hatchets."
13. There is also the evidence of motive. The statement of Hakim A.I in this connection is quite important. He got the dispute patched up between the parties and it appeared that peti--tioners- party still bore grudge against the deceased.
14. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are satisfied that there is satisfactory evidence against the petitioners that they caused the injuries to deceased Ghulam Nabi. The presence of petitioner Uris cannot be denied. The recovery of blood-stained hatchet from Ghulam Nabi corroborates the story of the prosecution against him. We, therefore, find no force in the petition which is dismissed.