1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-In this petition for special leave to appeal the petitioner has challenged the validity of his conviction and sentence of death under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Mst. Aisha, wife of P. W. 7 Muhammad Nawaz. The petitioner's grievance is that certain discrepancies and facts as disclosed in the evidence were not considered by the Courts below.
2. ' The murder took place on the 8th of August 1971, at 8 a.m. In the house of the deceased while her husband was away. A first information report was lodged by P. W. Muhammad Nawaz on the same day at 1 p.m. The occurrence was witnessed by P. W. 8 Rab Nawaz, a brother of the deceased, and P. W. 9 Haq Nawaz, an independent person against whom there was no suggestion of any ill-feeling or enmity with the petitioner.
3. ' It has been contended that although P. W. Rab Nawaz said that there was a sheet of cloth with which the body of the deceased was found covered, there was nothing to show that the sheet was recovered. Again this witness deposed that the cost of the deceased was blood-stained, but the cot was not seized. It appears, however, that neither P. W. Dr. Rauf who had first examined the deceased at the hospital nor the Investigating Officer was asked about the sheet. Besides it is very likely that the deceased who was then still alive was taken to the hospital covered with some cloth.
4. The Investigating Officer was also not asked anything about the cot. These omissions do not, in our opinion, furnish reasonable grounds for disbelieving the ocular evidence including that of the deceased's brother P. W. Rab Nawaz. P. W. Rab Nawaz denied having taken any loan from the petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve him merely because he is a brother of the deceased.
5. Besides his evidence stands corroborated by the evidence of P. W. Haq A Nawaz, an independent and disinterested witness. Both the witnesses have given good reasons for their presence at the place of occurrence.
6. ' There is also discrepancy as to the exact place where the first information report was recorded.
7. This discrepancy, in our opinion, does not affect the ocular evidence. Similarly the discrepancy about the date of marriage, namely 6/7th August or 8th August, which furnished the reason for the presence of P. Ws. Haq Nawaz and Rab Nawaz at the place of occurrence did not affect their evidence.
8. ' There is no substance in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.