1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition for special leave is from the order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the sentence of death passed on him under section 3;)2 of the Pakistan Penal Code for committing the murder of one Ehsanullah about 15 years old.
2. The occurrence took place on the 2nd of July 1970 at 11 in the morning and the first information report was lodged at the police station soon after by the maternal uncle of the deceased boy. The occurrence was witnessed by three persons including the complainant P. W. Nazir Ahmad, The ocular evidence has received full support from the recovery of drat (a sickle-like instrument) with which the murder was committed. It was produced by the petitioner himself and was subsequently found by the chemical examiner to contain human blood. The petitioner was arrested on the 4th of July, 1970, and he led to the recovery of the crime weapon from the ceiling of his cattle-shed.
3. Among the eye-witnesses P. W. 10 Ahmad Khan is a completely independent witness. The other two witnesses do not have any previous enmity with the petitioner. In these circumstances there was no reason to disbelieve the ocular evidence, and they were rightly accepted by the trial Court as well as the High Court. It has been contended by Mr. Shaukat A.I that having regard to the distance which separated the witnesses from the place of occurrence and which ranged from 175 feet to 245 feet the witnesses would surely have been able to prevent the murder, but the fact that they did not do so showed that they were not present at the spot. We are unable to accept this contention. The witnesses have categorically stated that they were present at the spot and saw the occurrence. Their presence at the spot was not challenged.
4. Mr. Shaukat A.I has next contended that inasmuch as the Medical Officer Dr. Mehtab Akhtar has stated in his cross-examination that it is possible that some of the injuries out of the 21 injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused with two different kinds of sharp-edged weapon, the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case regarding the manner of occurrence. The ocular evidence is consistent that the deceased was killed with a drat bar the petitioner and it has received support from the medical evidence. The mere fact that the doctor has accepted the suggestion that the injuries could be caused by two different kinds of sharp. Edged weapon does not, in any way detract from the support it gives to the prosecution case.
5. The occurrence took place in broad daylight, and only one single person has been implicated in the crime. There is no reason on the part of the witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioner. In these circumstances we do not think there is substance in this contention.
6. The contentions raised by Mr. Shaukat A.I related to the appreciation of evidence which it is no part of the function of this Court to reappraise.
7. Mr. Shaukat has also contended that the petitioner had a Constitutional right of appeal without the necessary leave from this Court inasmuch as the confirmation of the death sentence by the High Court really amounted to awarding the sentence of death by the High Court.
8. This view is consistent with the view taken by the majority decision of this Court in the case of Rashid Ahmad v. Stare (PLD 1969 SC 362).
9. We, accordingly, reject this contention, and refuse leave to appeal. The purported appeal is treated as a petition for special leave to appeal and it is dismissed.