' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner, Abdul Razzaq, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, of the offence under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, for causing the death of Saulat Naveed, deceased, and was sentenced to death and payment of Rs,1,00,000 as fine. On appeal and reference, the High Court upheld his conviction under section 302, ibid, but reduced his substantive sentence to imprisonment for life and also the fine to Rs,25,000. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. There was no enmity between the parties and the present occurrence was the sequel to an incident which had taken place two or three days earlier. It was stated that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the deceased and the latter had given some fist blows to the former.
During the scuffle the Shalwar of the petitioner dropped on the ground and he felt extremely humiliated.
3. The occurrence took place on 24-12-1988 at 1-00 p.m. On Guliana Road of Kharian Cantt. At the relevant time, the deceased had come to Kharian Cantt alongwith his brother Muhammad Younis (P.W.5), his cousin Asghar All (P.W.6) and Hakim Khan for shopping. As they passed by an auto workshop the petitioner confronted them. He was armed with a'12 bore pistol. He raised a Lalkara and fired at the deceased. The deceased was hit in the region of his neck and head. He was taken to the hospital by his companions where he died before any medical assistance could be rendered to him. His brother, Muhammad Younis (P.W.5) went to Police Station Kharian Cantt. And lodged the first information report at 2-15 p.m.
4. At the trial, the petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge of causing the death of the deceased and alleged that he had been falsely implicated.
5. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner was mainly based upon the ocular testimony provided by Muhammad Younis (P.W.5) and Asghar All (P.W.6). As stated earlier, they were accompanying the deceased at the time of the occurrence. No doubt, they were closely related to him but considering that there was no enmity between the parties their relationship with the deceased can hardly be regarded as a factor detracting from their credibility. The first information report was recorded at the police station within an hour and a half of the occurrence wherein not only the names of the eye-witnesses but also of the person who had fired at the deceased were mentioned. The trial Court and the High Court found their testimony substantially true and convicted the petitioner on the charge under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the eyewitnesses belonged to a village which was 27 miles away from the scene of occurrence and as such their testimony ought not to have been accepted on its face value. Apart from that there were indications that the first information report was not recorded in the manner appearing from the record. We find little merit in these contentions. The contention that the first information report was not recorded at the time mentioned in its relevant column is founded on an extremely tenuous basis and must therefore be rejected. To support his case in this regard the learned counsel has referred to two documents, namely, Exh.PG and Exh.PH, but these documents are not relevant for finding out the time when the first information report was recorded. It was nothing extraordinary for the eye-witnesses to have accompanied the deceased from their village when the latter came for shopping to Kharian Cantt.
And we see no reason for rejecting their claim that they were with the deceased at the relevant time. We are therefore unable to find any fault with the appraisal of the evidence as carried out by the High Court and the trial Court. The petitioner has already been given the benefit of the lesser sentence and a direction has been given by the High Court that the benefit of section 382-B, Criminal Procedure Code, should be extended to him.
' He could not have been more leniently treated in the matter of sentence. This petition is accordingly dismissed as without any merit.