' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Petition No, 77/L/92 and Criminal Petition No, 86/L/92, filed by Muhammad Latif convict and Abdul Ghafoor complainant, respectively. Both the petitions are directed against the Lahore High Court's judgment dated 13-11- 1991, rendered in a murder case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, by his judgment dated 25-5-1989, convicted and sentenced Muhammad Latif petitioner as under:--
(i) under section 302, P.P.C., for committing the murder of complainant's father Muhammad Shall deceased, and sentenced to death. Under section 307, P.P.C., for launching murderous assault on Abdul Ghafoor complainant and inflicting injuries on him; sentenced to 7 years' R.I.
(iii) under section 452, P.P.C. For committing house trespass and causing hurt; sentenced to 5 years' R.I.
In addition to the sentences of imprisonment, some fine was also imposed on him. The co-accused Muhammad Hanif was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
2. The motive put forth by the prosecution was that in the year 1976 the deceased had murdered the brother of the two accused and in order to take the revenge, they committed the murder of the deceased.
3. The High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the convict's appeal and confirmed the death sentence imposed on him. The Murder Reference was disposed of accordingly. The complainant's criminal revision against acquittal failed.
4. The prosecution story as narrated in the impugned judgment, is as under:-- "On the night of occurrence, the deceased alongwith his sons, Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Ghafar P.Ws., was asleep in the courtyard of his house. At about 3-30 a.m. Both the brothers heard a cry.
On being so aroused, they found Muhammad Hanif accused armed with a .12 bore gun and Muhammad Latif, appellant, armed with a hatchet, present in the courtyard. An electric bulb was alight and Abdul Ghafoor P.W. Had no difficulty in recognizing them. Muhammad Latif, appellant, gave hatchet blows one after the other to the deceased and Muhammad Hanif accused kept standing with his gun. Abdul Ghafoor P.W. And his brother raised an alarm, which brought their uncle, Muhammad Jamil, from his Ihata to the spot. Abdul Ghafoor P.W. Tried to catch hold of Muhammad Latif, appellant and he hit him with his hatchet on his head and hands. Nonetheless Abdul Ghafoor P.W. Grappled with Muhammad Latif, appellant, with the result that the Chadar of Muhammad Latif, appellant, fell down. Muhammad Jamil and Abdul Ghaffar P.Ws. Tried to catch hold of Muhammad Hanif accused but Muhammad Hanif accused fired at Abdul Ghaffar P.W.; the latter was clever enough to raise the barrel of the gun with his hand and thus avoid being hit.
Muhammad Jamil and Abdul Ghaffar P.Ws. Snatched the gun from Muhammad Hanif and Abdul Ghafoor P.W. Snatched the hatchet from Muhammad Latif, appellant. Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Ghaffar P.Ws. Then attended to their father. This enabled the appellant and Muhammad Hanif accused to run away."
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the convict. The prosecution examined three eye- witnesses; out of whom Abdul Ghafoor complainant (P.W.10) and his brother Abdul Ghaffar were believed by the trial Court as well as the High Court. Being inmates of the house, it was accepted that they were sleeping in the courtyard of the house alongwith their deceased father and thus are considered as natural witnesses. It is significant to point out that Abdul Ghafoor complainant received 7 injuries, out of which 3 were sharp-edged injuries. The hatchet (P.4) produced at the spot before the Investigating Officer, according to the Chemical Examiner's report, was stained with human blood. Thus, as regards the convict this recovery was considered as corroborative piece of evidence.
6. The convict's defence before the High Court, which is also reiterated before us, was that it was a blind murder and the assailant could not be identified and that he was falsely involved due to suspicion. It is not possible to lend any weight to this submission. The convict is known to the P.Ws.
As they belong to the same village. As already observed, the complainant suffered 7 injuries, which is indicative of his grappling with the petitioner-convict. Further according to the post-mortem report 6 sharp-edged injuries were caused to the deceased. The infliction of this much of injuries to P.Ws. And the deceased must have taken some time, which enabled the P.Ws. To identify the convict. There is no good reason as to why the real culprit be substituted by the convict.
7. After going through the record we feel that the High Court has taken correct view and followed the principles laid down by this Court for safe administration of justice. The occurrence took place in the house of the deceased; the presence of his two sons i,e, the P.Ws. In the house at the eye of Eid was natural. Furthermore, one of the P.Ws. Was also injured. The hatchet (P.4) provided corroboration to the role attributed to the convict Muhammad Latif. His conviction under section 302, P.P.C. And the sentence of death imposed on him is justified and does not call for interference.
' The petition against acquittal is not pressed. Accordingly, both' the petitions are dismissed and the leave prayed for refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.