OPINION OF THE FIRST JUDGE NAIMUDDIN, J.--This is a petition from Jail. The petitioner alongwith his brother Fateh Muhammad and three other persons namely, Khizar Hayat son of Ata Muhammad, Muhammad Hayat son of Shah Muhammad and Bakhsha son of Mathella were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge at Sargodha on the charge under Section 302 read with Sections 109 and 34 of P.P.C. For having caused the murder of Muhammad Ali.
2. The Additional Sessions Judge by the judgment dated 18-5-1985, found the petitioner guilty of murder and sentenced him to death and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months. He also directed that in the event of recovery of fine the same shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A of Cr.P.C. He acquitted the remaining accused of the charge.
3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the petitioner filed an appeal in the Lahore High Court at Lahore. The Additional Sessions Judge also referred the case to the High Court under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. For confirmation of the death sentence.
4. The complainant Nazar Muhammad also preferred a Criminal Revision Application, being No.464 of 1985, assailing the acquittal of Fateh Muhammad, Muhammad Hayat, Khizar Hayat and Bakhsha and also prayed for enhancement of the fine imposed on the petitioner.
5. The High Court by the judgment dated 21-12-1987 impugned in this petition, dismissed the appeal but did not confirm the death sentence and altered it to imprisonment for life maintaining the sentence of fine as imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court, however, dismissed the revision application finding the same having no merits.
6. The prosecution case as stated by the first informant, namely, Nazar Muhammad in the F.I.R. waF that he and his brother were cultivators in village Nasirpur Kalan. On the day of incident they both came to the shop of Gullu, a blacksmith, for getting mended a Phalla (blade of the plough). Since Gullu, the blacksmith, was not present at his shop he waited for him while deceased, Muhammad Ali, went to ease himself. About Peshiwela the petitioner armed with a hatchet alongwith. Fateh Muhammad, the acquitted accused, appeared at the shop of the blacksmith. Fateh Muhammad the acquitted appellant caught hold of Muhammad Ali and. Petitioner inflicted a hatchet blow on the right temporal bone to the deceased. On the hue and cry raised by the complainant and the deceased, Natu son of Dhari and Saru son of Salehoun rushed to the scene of occurrence. Yakka the petitioner and Fateh Muhammad escaped from the scene of offence. The deceased was brought to the Hospital Midh Ranjha where he succumbed to his injuries. After leaving Salehoun and Nawaz with dead body the complainant went to the Police Station and lodged the first information report (Ex.PE.2). It was alleged that the petitioner and his brother had committed the murder of Muhammad Ali deceased, after having conspired with the acquitted accused, Bakhsha, Muhammad Hayat and Khizar Hayat.
7: After registration of the case Muhammad Iqbal, A.S.I. (P.W.13) proceeded to the hospital and prepared injuries statement (Ex.PF), inquest report (Ex.PG) and entrusted the dead body of Muhammad Ali to Mulazim Hussain, F.C. For taking it to the mortuary for post-mortem examination.
He proceeded to the spot and collected the blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence after preparing a memo (Ex.PA).
8. On 20-8-1984, Asmatullah Khan, Inspector, (PW 14) arrested the petitioner and Fateh Muhammad, accused, from bus-stand Chak Miana. On a disclosure made by the petitioner, during the course of interrogation a blood-stained hatchet (EX.P.1) was recovered from a sugar-cane field situated near a dera.
9. The motive for commission of the crime, as stated, was that 18 or 19 years before the occurrence,, the deceased Muhammad Ali had abducted the sister of the petitioner and thus on account of the said grudge the petitioner killed him. The allegation against other acquitted accused was that the petitioner had murdered the deceased in conspiracy with them.
10. The conviction of the appellant is based on ocular testimony of Nazar Muhammad (PW 10), Saru (PW 11), medical evidence, recovery of blood-stained earth and blood-stained hatchet, which were found stained with human blood according to chemical examiner's report and the report of Serologist.
11. The High Court in the impugned judgment has dealt with the contentions of improbability of the occurrence and the weakness of the motive. Dealing with the motive the High Court observed as follows:- "As far as motive is concerned, though the factum of abduction has been denied by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. We are of the view that the motive is true, inasmuch as it was the case of prosecution that the deceased had abducted the appellant's sister. We, therefore, have no reason to disbelieve it."
And, inter alia, relied on the case of Fazal Khan v. The State PLD 1964 SC 54 wherein it was observed as follows:- "It must be remembered that questions of family honour touching the females of a family, are of almost overpowering importance to the tribes of the Western regions. To vindicate that honour, they. Feel bound in duty to go to very great lengths:"
11. The High Court also believed the testimony of Nazar Muhammad and Saru and found that their statements were consistent and though they were cross-- examined at length but the defence failed to shake their credibility. High Court has also properly dealt with the contention that on the same testimony the other accused were acquitted. .
12. After having gone through the record I am of the view that the conviction of the appellant is based on proper appreciation of evidence and have not been able to find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. The petition is also barred by time by 50 days.
13. I would, therefore, for all these reasons, dismiss this petition.
OPINION OF THE SECOND JUDGE I agree that the Jail petition has no merits and be dismissed.
ORDER OF THE COURT This Jail petition has no merits. It is, therefore, dismissed.