' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Maqsood Ahmed, petitioner herein, calls in question the judgment dated 5-4-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby his appeal filed against the judgment dated 20-10-1981 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum convicting him under section 302, P.P.C. And sentencing him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,10,000 or to suffer two years' R.I. In default, the fine on recovery payable to the- heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Was dismissed. The Criminal Revision No, 25 of 1982 filed by Sajid Masood son of the deceased for enhancement of sentence was also dismissed through the same order.
' The facts of the case in a nutshell are that Bostan Khan deceased was sitting in the office of Ch. Muhammad Anwar, Advocate alongwith Zamurrad Khan P.W.7, Noor Muhammad P.W. 9 and Sajid Masood his son (given up) in the District Courts premises, Jhelum when Maqsood Ahmed petitioner armed, with .12 bore gun appeared and -fired a shot at him hitting him on his chest, as a result of which he fell down on the ground and expired. Muhammad Ashraf FC/246 and Sabir Hussain F.C.
Who were present in the Courts premises were able to overpower him alongwith the gun and they produced the accused alongwith the gun to S.H.O. Muhammad Riaz P.W.10 who immediately reached the spot on receipt of telephonic information. The S.H.O. Recorded the report of Zamurrad Khan P.W. 7 and started investigation in the case. He took into possession blood-stained Dan Exh.P.E., empty cartridge Exh. P.2, gun Exh. P.3 produced by Muhammad Ashraf FC/P.W.-8; license Exh. P.4, three live cartridges Exhs. P.5/1 to 3 and a ring from the personal search of the accused; application Exh.PK produced by Noor Muhammad P.W. 9 written by the deceased at his instance and sealed them vide different memos. He recorded the statements of the P.Ws, prepared a site plan and sent the empty taken from the spot and the gun produced by the F.C. Who had taken it into possession from the petitioner, to the arms expert and the result received by him was in the positive. After completion of the investigation, the petitioner was put on trial before the learned Sessions Judge, who, prepared the charge-sheet to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, and after recording of the prosecution evidence and statement of the accused, found the petitioner guilty for the murder of the deceased and sentenced him as stated in the introductory part of the judgment. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the High Court and the revision filed by the son of the deceased were dismissed by the impugned order and hence the instant petition for leave to appeal.
' We have heard Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case.
' It is a daylight occurrence allegedly committed by the petitioner to avenge the murder of his father 19/20 years ago witnessed by Zamurrad Khan P.W.7 and Noor Muhammad P.W.
9. The petitioner was apprehended alongwith the gun immediately after the commission of the offence in the Courts premises by Muhammad Ashraf F.C. P.W. 8 and Sabir Hussain, F.C. An empty Exh. P.4 was recovered from the spot by the I.O., namely, Muhammad Riaz, S.H.O./P.W. 10 and according to the arms expert the empty recovered from the spot had been fired from the gun which was admittedly in the possession of the petitioner at the time of his arrest. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He has conceded his presence in the Kutchery and his arrest by Muhammad Ashraf P.W.8 but on suspicion as he was holding the gun. Further, he did not deny the recovery of gun Exh.P.6 by the F.C. The eyewitnesses' account is, no doubt, interested but there is very strong corroboration of their testimony in the form of arrest of the accused alongwith the gun, matching of the empty recovered from the spot by the arms expert, application Exh.PK written at his instance by the deceased and the evidence of Muhammad Ashraf P.W.
8. In the presence of the aforementioned ocular and circumstantial evidence, the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the trial Court and the High Court do not suffer from any legal flaw of misreading or non-reading of evidence and do not call for interference by this Court.
' Resultantly, we dismiss the instant petition and refuse leave to appeal. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, we extend the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To the petitioner.