' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court; one is by Falak Sher and the other is by his brother, Nawaz. They alongwith their father, Yara, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, on two counts under section 302, read with section 34 of Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of Mst. Zaran and her brother Mohammad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted their father but convicted them on the said charges. He sentenced Nawaz to death and Falak Sher to imprisonment for life. In addition, he directed them to pay fines. On appeal and reference, the High Court maintained their conviction and sentences and confirmed the sentence of death imposed upon Nawaz. The petitioners now seek leave from this Court.
2. Mst. Zaran was married to Mubari, a brother of Yara. Mubari died whereupon she married his brother, Sardara. Sardara was unable to cultivate his land on account of old age. Mst. Zaran invited her brother, Mohammad to live with her and look after the land of Sardara and that left by Mubari.
This was resented by Yara and his sons as they thought that they were better entitled to cultivate the said land. Consequently, it led to strained relations between the parties. On the day of occurrence, that is, 15-6-1981 her brother Ghulam Ali alongwith his cousins, Hussain and Sardar Ali, and one Natoo visited her house which she shared with Yara in order to patch up the differences between her and their brother-in-law. During the course of talks between the parties, the petitioners and their father abused Mst. Zaran. She replied to them in the same language. Yara and the petitioners felt insulted and then left the house.
3. It was alleged by the prosecution that Gulam Ali and Husain slept in the courtyard of the house of Mst. Zaran while her brother Mohammad alongwith Sardar Ali and Natoo went to his Behk to sleep there. At about midnight Yara alongwith his two sons returned to the house. The petitioners were armed with a hatchet and a Toka while Yara was carrying a gun. At the instance of Yara, the petitioners struck Mst. Zaran with their weapons and killed her. They then left the house and went to the Behk where Mohammad was sleeping. There again at the instance of Yara, the petitioners attacked Muhammad and killed him also.
4. The matter was reported at the Police Station Kot Momin on the morning of 16-6-1981 at 6-05 a.m.
5. At the trial, the petitioners pleaded not guilty and denied that they were responsible for causing the death of Mst. Zaran and Mohammad. They did not lead any evidence in their defence.
6. At the trial, the prosecution relied on the eye-witness account provided by Ghulam Ali (PW.4), Hussain (PW.5) and Sardar Ali (PW.7). It sought support for the ocular testimony from the recovery of blood-stained hatchet and Toka from the possession of the two petitioners. The trial Court as well as the High Court considered that the ocular testimony was reliable enough to support the conviction of the petitioners.
7. In support of these petitions, it is contended that for conviction on a capital charge it is necessary that the evidence should emanate from independent sources and be reliable. In this particular case, all the three eye-witnesses were related to the two deceased and lived in a village which was four miles away from the scene of ocucrrence. Consequently, their testimony was not sufficient to prove the charges against the petitioners.
8. It is no doubt true that the eye-witnesses belonged to a different village and were related to the two deceased but then they gave satisfactory explanations for their presence at the scene of occurrence at the relevant night. They had no enmity with the petitioners and there was no reason why they should have perjured themselves against the petitioners. The learned counsel wants us to reappraise the evidence but he has not been able to lay any foundation for the same. We would accordingly dismiss these petitions.