1. JAVID IQBAL, J.-- Leave to appeal is being sought against the judgment dated 11th October 1982 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.449 of 1980.
2. The facts are that Ahmad and Nawab petitioners were tried for the murder of Muhammad Hassan deceased and vide judgment dated 6th April 1980 of the trial Court both of them were convicted under section 302/34 PPC. Ahmad petitioner was sentenced to death plus fine there under whereas Nawab petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine. Ahmad petitioner was armed with a Toka but Nawab petitioner was empty handed. In appeal before the High Court a learned Division Bench vide its judgment dated 11 October 1982 while maintaining the conviction of both the petitioners altered the sentence of death awarded to Ahmad petitioner to imprisonment for life.
3. The occurrence took place on 15th March 1977 at midnight in village Chuchak, Deh 38, Tehsil Okara, District Sahiwal. The FIR was lodged on the same day at 5-30 a.m. By Kamir uncle of the deceased (not produced). Both the petitioners were arrested on 23rd March 1977. Recoveries from the spot were, besides blood-stained earth, lantern and an amputated thumb. Human blood Toka was recovered from Ahmad petitioner. The sole eye-witness of the occurrence produced in this case is Muhammad Arshad PW.1 who is stated to be related to the deceased. The other two eye witnesses, namely, Kamir and his son Abbas had not been produced. It may be pointed out that Nawab petitioner in the instant case was also injured. He had one grievous injury caused with sharp- edged weapon by which his thumb had been cut of. The motive is that about seven years prior to the present occurrence Lal father of Nawab petitioner had sought the hand of Mst. Bashiran from her father Nawab for his own son Nawab petitioner which was refused. Then two years before the present occurrence, Mst. Bashiran was married to Muhammad Hassan deceased. Briefly theth prosecution story is that on the fateful day Kamir and Abbas alongwith Muhammad Arshad PW went to the Mela of Sakhi Sarwar near the Chak of the deceased. They did not return to their houses but stayed for the night with the deceased in his Behk. The deceased left a lantern burning and they all went to sleep. At about mid night Kamir got up on the barking of a dog and saw that Nawab petitioner had held the deceased from his hair whereas Ahmad petitioner was causing Toka injuries on the neck and head of the deceased. He raised alarm which awakened Muhammad Arshad PW and Abbas. They tried to intervene but Nawab petitioner threatened them and eventually both the petitioners ran away. The occurrence was witnessed by all the three and from the spot was found an amputated human thumb near the cot of the deceased.
4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was only solitary statement of Muhammad Arshad PW on which the conviction and sentence is based. According to the learned counsel Muhammad Arshad PW was a chance witness who should have not been relied upon. It was next submitted that the amputated thumb picked up from the spot was not in any way connected with Nawab petitioner whose thumb was found cut off. According to the version of Nawab petitioner his thumb had been cut off in the fodder cutting machine.
5. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel but found them without force.
6. The solitary statement of eye-witness Muhammad Arshad PW is being corroborated by the recovery evidence and further supported by the medical evidence and the motive version.
7. Consequently there was Justification in basing conviction and sentence on the solitary statement of this eye-witness. According to the ocular version Nawab petitioner had held the deceased by his hair while Ahmad petitioner was giving him Toka blows on the neck and head and it is reasonably probable that his thumb was chopped off in this process. In our view it was not necessary to connect the thumb found on the spot with Nawab petitioner for it was a piece of circumstantial evidence supporting the ocular testimony. In our considered opinion no case for re-appraisal of evidence is made out. The petition is therefore dismissed.