1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner alongwith one other was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge at Faisalabad of an offence under section 302 read with section 34, Paldstan Penal Code, and was sentenced to death. On appeal and reference the High Court confirmed the sentence of death. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. ' The occurrence allegedly took place on 2-11-1987 at 8-30 a.m. At the bus-stop in Thikriwala.
3. Muhammad Aslam, deceased had come there on a bus. As he was alighting from the bus the petitioner together with the co-accused attacked him with Chhuris. The deceased died at the spot.
4. The occurrence was witnessed by his brother Muhammad Akram and some others. Muhammad Akram went to Police Station Thikriwala, which was one square away and lodged the F.I.R. At 8-45 a.m.
5. According to the prosecution the relations between the deceased and the petitioner were extremely strained on account of theft of water by the petitioner and due to the pendency of another case against the petitioner in a Criminal Court in which the deceased was a witness for the prosecution, These strained relations were stated to be the motive for the occurrence.
6. ' The case of the prosecution against the petitioner rested mainly on the ocular account provided by Muhammad Akram (P.W.9) and Bashir Ahmad (P.W.10). The trial Court as well as the High Court found their testimony to substantially true and accordingly convicted the petitioner of an offence under section 302 read with section 34 for causing the death of the deceased.
7. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 302. He has, however, contended that this was not a fit case where the sentence of death should have bee imposed upon the petitioner.
8. ' After going through the record we are unable to find any merit in t contention. According to the post-mortem report the deceased had received incised wounds on his body only one of these was fatal. It was attributed to petitioner. Apart from that, it was the petitioner who first attacked the deceased. Further, out of the two convicts he alone had the motive to kill deceased. In the circumstances, we do not think that the Courts below erred awarding him the capital punishment.
9. Leave is refused.