1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J,-- This order will dispose of Criminal Petition No.260 of 1984 and Criminal Petition No.74-R of 1984, as both of them are directed against one and the same judgment of the Lahore High Court.
2. The relevant facts are that Pehalwan, his son Sarfraz and Saleem were tried for the murder of Altaf Hussain by the learned Sessions Judge, Multan, who, by his order dated 11-12-1982, acquitted Pehalwan. The to petitioners were, however, found guilty of the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C.
3. And were sentenced to death with a fine of Rs.2,000 each, in default to undergo to years' R.I. Each.
4. The occurrence, in which the petitioners were involved, took place on 3-2-1981 at 11.15 p.m. In Chowk Hamayun Road at a distance of three furlongs from Police Station, Old Kotwali, Multan. The first information report (Ex. P. C .) was lodged by Muhammad Bakhsh, father of the deceased within about 40 minutes of the occurrence. According to the report, at about 11.15 p.m. Altaf Hussain, who was a rikshaw driver, came out of his house in his rikshaw with a view to leaving it with the owner.
5. Soon after he left his house for this purpose some noise was heard whereupon Muhammad Bakhsh, P.W.4, Muhammad Ramzan, P.W.5, Pir Bakhsh and Malik Muhammad Nawaz Khund came out of the house. They saw Sarfraz and Saleem armed with knives and Pehalwan with Sota stopping Altaf Hussain. Pehalwan had caught hold of him by his collar and dragged him out of the rikshaw and attacked him with a Lathi which he warded of on his hand. Then Sarfraz inflicted a knife blow on Altaf on the left side of his chest. Saleem gave the second blow. Altaf was hit in the left flank. Sarfraz again inflicted an injury with his knife, which hit Altaf in the back side of his left shoulder. Saleem also inflicted second blow on the left calf of Altaf. Pehalwan went on shouting that if anybody came close he would be dealt with in the same way. The accused, after committing this heinous deed ran away. Altaf succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
6. The motive for this incident given in the F.I.R. Was that Pehalwan (who was the cousin of Muhammad Bakhsh P.W.4, the complainant) had demanded the hands of the daughter of Muhammad Bakhsh for his son. Muhammad Bakhsh refused and instead married of his daughter to somebody else. The accused had a grievance against Muhammad Bakhsh on this account and it was this grudge which led to the attack on his son.
7. The prosecution examined to eye-witnesses Muhammad Bakhsh P.W.4, father of the deceased and Muhammad Ramzan, P.W.5, also a relative of the deceased, In addition to this, reliance was placed on the recovery of blood-stained knives at the instance of the petitioners and the post-mortem report of the deceased which corroborated the account of the witnesses to the extent of the involvement in the transaction of the petitioners herein (no blunt weapon injury was revealed in the post-mortem examination for which reason the case against Pehalwan was considered doubtful and he was given the benefit of doubt).
8. The petitioners filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence before the Lahore High Court and the matter was also referred to it for confirmation of the sentence of death. The High Court, by its judgment and order dated 7-4-1984, maintained the conviction under section 302, P.P.C. But altered the sentence of the petitioners from death to life imprisonment under section 302, P.P.C. On the ground that the motive alleged was doubtful because the marriage of Muhammad Bakhsh's daughter had taken place more than 12 years ago. The fine was, however, enhanced from Rs.2,000 to Rs.10,000 and it was ordered that the whole amount be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation.
9. The petitioners, Sarfraz and Saleem, have challenged the judgment of the High Court in this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.260 of 1984, while Muhammad Bakhsh, father of the deceased, has also filed a petition in this Court (Cr.P.74-R/84) contending that the sentence of death passed on the convicts was the appropriate sentence and the High Court was not justified in reducing it to life imprisonment.
10. Both the petitions have been heard together. Mr. M.B. Zaman, learned counsel for the convicts has urged that the murder was committed on a wintry night in the month of February, 1981, at 11.15 p.m.
11. When the streets were completely deserted and the occurrence was at a place where there was no electric light and that, in reality, it was an un witnessed occurrence. In this connection, he submitted that there was no mention of any electric light in the F.I.R., the Inquest Report, the rough site plan prepared by the police or the inspection note of the police officer who arrived at the spot soon after the registration of the case. The evidence in the case consisted of close relatives and the enmity between the parties was established on the record. The recovery of the crime weapons i.e, knives Exh. P.1 and Exh, P.2 could not be relied upon as they were kept unnecessarily for a month in the police custody before despatch to the ,Chemical Examiner.
12. On the other hand. Mr. Aftab Farrukh, learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that the conviction of the petitioners was fully justified. The occurrence had taken place very near the house of the complainant and the presence of the witnesses at the spot was altogether natural and they had undoubtedly seen the occurrence. Furthermore, the motive of the crime was not doubtful and the circumstances showed that it was a pre-meditated attack and, therefore, the imposition of the lesser sentence was not justified.
13. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record we are satisfied that the witnesses had, indeed, witnessed the occurrence and we have no doubt on that point. Furthermore, the recoveries made at the instance of the petitioners could have been relied upon. Hence ample corroboration existed to the ocular account furnished by the witnesses, who were related to the deceased.
14. As for the question of sentence we consider that the High Court was justified in imposing the lesser sentence. It is an admitted position that there was no immediate motive for the commission of the crime and the motive alleged by the prosecution in the F.I.R. Was to remote to be accepted and was rightly rejected by the High Court.
15. The upshot is that there is no ground for interference with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Both these petitions must fail and are, accordingly, hereby rejected.