1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioners were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, under section 302, P. P. C. Read with section 34, P. P. C. And section 13 (d) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. They were sentenced to death under the former section and under the latter section they were sentenced to two years' R. I. Each. They challenged this judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 1970 (Confirma--petition Case No. 43 of 1970), and a Division Bench of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, by judgment dated the 15 July 1971 dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences of the petitioners. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said Judgment.
2. The prosecution case is that about three years before the present occurrence one Hayat cousin of the petitioners was murdered and some Brohis were challaned in that connection and they were acquitted by the trial Court. The petitioners suspected the deceased to be having a hand in this murder and in spite of a faisla on Holy Quran whereby the innocence of the deceased was established, the petitioners bore grudge against the deceased. On the 2nd February 1970, the deceased Kajlo Khan left his house in the morning to supervise over his lands. At about 12-00 noon, his son P. W. Shah Nawaz, his brother P. W. Ahmad Khan and his servant P. W. Gut Muham--mad were sitting in their otak, when they heard a gun report. They came out, stood near the outer wall of their otak which is chest high and saw the deceased standing on the bank of watercourse 34 A. R.
3. Nurpur Minor. The two petitioners were also standing at a distance of 19 paces from the deceased with guns in their hands. They further saw that the petitioners fired from their respective guns at the deceased who fell down the petitioners ran away thereafter.th The prosecution case rests on the ocular testimony of three eye-witnesses, namely, P. W. Shah Nawaz the complainant, P. W. Ahmad Khan and P. W. Gut Muhammad. They have narra--ted the above story. These witnesses have been supported by Gut Hassan who corroborates the version of the complainant and stated that the latter had come and informed him of the incident and named the petitioners as the culprits.
4. Against petitioner Muhammad Murad, there are two other pieces of evidence. On his arrest, a double-barrel gun was secured from his possession which was sent to the Ballistics Expert, along with one empty cartridge that was found at the scene of offence. The Ballistics Expert's opinion is that this cartridge was fired from the gun of this petitioner. A pair of shoes was also recovered from the scene of offence and it fitted the feet of this petitioner.
5. Against petitioner Khuda Bux, there is evidence that he was absconding after the crime as he was arrested by the Head Constable P. W. Abdus Sattar, seven days after the occurrence, i.e., on the 9th February 1970.
6. The learned Judges of the High Court have accepted these pieces of evidence against-ate petitioners and have found them to be trustworthy.
7. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the oral testimony against the petitioners is of interested witnesses and, therefore, it should not have been believed by the High Court. He further con--tended that the recovery of the gun and the recovery of empty cartridge is also doubtful and much reliance should not have been placed on it.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are satisfied that there is satisfactory evidence against the peti--tioners with regard to their guilt. It is true that two of the eye--witnesses are related to the deceased but there is no enmity between the complainant party and the petitioners. Moreover, there is corroborative evidence against the petitioners. The High Court was perfectly justified in relying on this evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to give any reason why the eye-witnesses should falsely implicate the petitioners. It may be noted that P. W. Gut Muhammad is not related to the deceased. He was the servant of the deceased and according to the High Court at the time when he gave evidence at the trial he was no longer in the service of the deceased. The High Court has applied its mind properly to the facts of the present case and has rightly reached the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of the murder of deceased Kajlo Khan. There is no force in the petition. The petition is dismissed.