1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-Petition No. 62 of 1973 is by two persons, Abdur Rehman and Ismail, and it was filed on the 27th of March 1973. Petition No. 102 of 1973 is by Ismail alone, and it was filed on the 25th of April 1973.
2. Both Abdur Rehman and Ismail have been convicted under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Muhammad Nasir, and sentenced to death.
3. The occurrence took place on the 3rd November 1970, at 6 a.m. In the Newar factory of Muhammad Nasir deceased and Muhammad Aslam, son of P. W. 9 Muhammad Sharif. Muhammad Nasir was injured by petitioners Abdur Rehman and Ismail with knives. This was preceded by the petitioners having abused the deceased on the latter's refusal to re-employ the former. The two injuries on the chest of the deceased were attributed to Ismail, and one injury on the abdomen and one on the left knee of the deceased were assigned to Abdur Rehman. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.
4. Muhammad Sharif, Bahadur Ali and Rahmat Ali. The victim was promptly removed to Mayo Hospital and was medically examined at 6-40 a.m the same day. Misri Shah Police Station, which is 1-- miles off the place of occurrence received the information over the telephone from some body in the Casualty Ward of the hospital. P.W. 12 Muhammad Salim Khan, A.S.I., proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W. Muhammad Sharif at 10-30 a.m. On the same day.
5. The petitioners were arrested on the 4th of November 1970. Abdur Rehman led to the recovery of a knife (Exh. P. 1) from inside the room of his house from under a heap of bricks on the 6th of November 1970. The same day Ismail led to the recovery of a knife (Exh. P. 2). From underneath a heap of earth in his house. Both the knives were subsequently found to be stained with human blood by the Serologist.
6. On the 5th of November 1970, the Assistant Sub-Inspector recorded the statement of Muhammad Nasir, after having ascertained from the doctor in the hospital that the injured was fit to make a statement. Muhammad Nasir died 10 days after the occurrence.
7. The three eye-witnesses who were mentioned in the F. I. R. And whose evidence have been relied for conviction of the petitioners by the trial Court as well as the High Court are P.Ws. Muhammad Sharif, Bahadur Ali and Rehmat Ali.
8. P. W. Muhammad Sharif is father of Muhammad Nadim the partner in the business of the deceased. The witness is related to the deceased, who was the son of the daughter of the elder brother of the witness. There does not appear to be any reason for him to falsely implicate the two petitioners. His evidence has received corroboration from the two other witnesses.
9. P. W. Bahadur Ali is an employee of the factory and knew both the petitioners. He saw the deceased and P. W. Muhammad Sharif present in the factory at the time of occurrence. He saw the deceased lying injured in the compound of the factory, and the two petitioners running away with knives in their hands. He, however, stated in cross-examination that he saw the two persons running away with their back towards the witness and did not see their faces. His evidence read as a whole lends ample corroboration to the evidence of P. W. Muhammad Sharif.
10. P. W. Rehmat Ali saw the deceased and P. W. Muhammad Sharif in the factory at the time of the occurrence. He heard the cries `knives have been inflicted, knives have been inflicted.'. This witness resiled from statement before the committing Court and he was accordingly declared hostile and cross--examined. His evidence before the committing Court was put in under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In his evidence before the committing Court he fully supported the prosecution case and implicated the petitioners. Even apart from his evidence before the committing Court his evidence lends support to the prosecution case regarding the place and time of occurrence as well as the use of knives in the commission of the crime. The medical evidence fully supports the prosecution story. The evidence of motive lends further support to the ocular evidence.
11. It has been contended that there was inordinate delay in the lodging of the F.I. R. And this has affected the truth of the prosecution case. We do not think that in the facts and circumstances of the case there was any such delay. P.W. Muhammad Sharif has denied that he required time to concoct the story and there does not appear to be any reason for him to concoct a false story.
12. It is true that the dying statement as well as the evidence of recoveries have not been relied on, but this does not affect the truth of the prosecution case. The Courts did not hold than the dying statement and the recoveries were false. The ocular evidence is sufficient and reliable to prove the charge of murder against the petitioners.
13. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed.