SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: --The petitioner, a convict under section 302, P.P.C. And originally sentenced to death, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 6th of April, 1986, whereby his appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed and the sentence of death was confirmed.
2. Since the conviction by the High Court the benefit of general amnesty has become available to the petitioner and his death sentence stands converted into life imprisonment.
3. The prosecution case against the petitioner and his two companions was that on 14th of August, 1981, the petitioner alongwith his two companions Maqbool and Saeed had an altercation with the deceased Zafar Iqbal who used to sell ice alongwith his brother Muhammad Sharif (P.W. 8). This altercation had prompted the petitioner and others to extend threats to the deceased. On 11th of September, 1981, about a month after that altercation, Aqeeqa ceremony was held at the house of Ashraf, one of the brothers of the deceased and Muhammad Sharif (P.W. 8). At about 5-00 p.m., they were distributing the cooked rice by making delivery at the houses of relatives of theirs in a tonga owned by them. While on their way in a Chowk, the petitioner and his two other companions intercepted their tonga, stopped it and the petitioner inflicted Chhurri injury on the deceased and also injured Muhammad Sharif (P.W. 8). Muhammad Sharif (P.W. 8) and Muhammad Anwar (P.W. 9) appeared as eye-witnesses at the trial. Muhammad Sharif (P.W. 8) was found to have received an incised wound 5 cm x half cm placed over the right hand medio palmer aspect at the base line of the little finger, and the deceased had received four incised wounds and two abraded contusions.
The incised wound on the chest had proved fatal. The petitioner and his companions denied the occurrence and claimed false implication on account of enmity.
4. The trial Court held, that the motive given by the prosecution was not proved. It did not believe the presence of Muhammad Sharif (P.W. 8) twenty days earlier when altercation had taken place providing the motive for the occurrence. As regards the occurrence, however, the evidence of Muhammad Sharif (P.W. 8) who was himself injured in the occurrence, and Muhammad Anwar (P.W. 9), and the evidence of recovery of blood-stained Chhuri was considered sufficient for proving the case against the petitioner who was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to death. His other two companions who had played no role except for their presence, were acquitted of the charge.
5. On appeal and while seized of the question of confirmation of sentence of death, the High Court re-appraised the entire evidence by the impugned judgment and affirmed the conclusion of the trial Court and confirmed the sentence under section 302, P.P.C.
6. Mr. Muhammad Ikram, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it appeared from the prosecution evidence that the F.I.R. Was lodged at the spot after some preliminary enquiry. In support of this proposition, he has referred to the statement of Muhammad Anwar (P.W. 9) wherein he stated that "Muhammad Sharif had gone to his house after the arrival of the Police after giving his statement at the spot". The learned counsel has also referred to the late examination of Muhammad Sharif by the doctor at mid-night. He also contended that the recovery of the Chhurri from the petitioner was not proved.
7. Muhammad Sharif had an injury on the palm of his hand which was indeed corroborative of the fact that it has been caused while attempting to ward off or avoid the effect of Chhuri blow. He was the injured witness. There was absolutely no reason for him to substitute the offender. The occurrence had taken place at a public place and the witnesses accompanying the deceased were produced, one being injured in the same occurrence. Their statements have been appraised by the two Courts thoroughly and they have believed their veracity. We do not find any error of law or violation of principle of law such as may justify the further examination or re-appraisal of evidence at our level.
8., We find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.