1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.--Mehrban and others, petitioners herein, call in question the judgment dated 28-3-1994 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby Criminal Appeal No, 15/90 filed by the petitioners, Murder Reference No,175/90, and Criminal Revision No, 36/90 filed by the complainant, were disposed of through a consolidated judgment, the appeal filed by the petitioners dismissed with the modification that the death sentence awarded to Mehrban petitioner--1 was commuted to life imprisonment, the Murder Reference replied in the negative and the Criminal Revision dismissed.
2. ' The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Muhammad Aslam deceased went to his field for ploughing the same and took a pair of bullocks and yoke alongwith him for the purpose, early in the morning. Tariq Mahmood P.W.6 who is his brother-in-law, residing in a different village, was staying in the house of Muhammad Razzaq complainant P.W.7 and before his departure in the morning, he wanted to see the deceased, his brother-in-law, and since he was away to the field he alongwith the complainant and Abdul Rashid P.W. Left the house but en route heard his cries and saw Mehrban petitioner armed with a hatchet, Jehan Zeb petitioner armed with a Chhuri, Tazarab Hussain petitioner armed with hatchet, and Shaheen Mahmood petitioner also armed with a hatchet. They raised a Lalkara that they would teach a lesson to the deceased for appearing as a witness against them and also for ploughing the land from which he had been prohibited.
3. Simultaneously, all of them started delivering blows to the deceased one after the other with their respective weapons on different parts of his body resulting in his death. Muhammad Razzaq complainant went to the police station and made a report which was recorded vide F.I.R. Exh. P.H., charging the petitioners for murdering the deceased. After the completion of the investigation, the petitioners were put on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, who framed the necessary charge-sheet against them, recorded the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, and after the appraisal thereof awarded death sentence to Mehrban petitioner 1 and a fine of Rs,10,000 or in defualt two years' R.I. And sentenced the other petitioners to imprisonment for life plus a fine of Rs,10,000 each or in default two years' R.I., half of the fine on recovery was to be paid to the heirs of the deceased and the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to them. The petitioners preferred appeal against their conviction and sentence while the learned Additional Sessions Judge made a reference for the confirmation of death sentence. The complainant preferred revision petition for the enhancement of the sentences awarded to the petitioners which were disposed of through a common judgment impugned herein. Hence the instant petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' We have heard Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri, Advocate, for the petitioner; Sardar M. Ishaq Khan, Advocate, for the complainant; and have perused the record of the case.
5. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated his arguments which wtre addressed by him before the High Court as well and are reflected in para. 10 of the judgment. We have appraised the evidence in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel but could not be convinced about any legal error, misreading or non-reading of evidence by the trial Court so as to justify interference in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued that it was a blind murder committed in the darkness of night, unnoticed and unwitnessed by anybody and that the petitioners were charged on suspicion. He referred to the F.I.Rs, copies Exhs.DC, DD and DE to contend that the deceased had other enemies as well and the possibility that any of them did away with him connot be ruled out. In support of his reasoning he referred to the medical evidence according to which at the time of post-mortem the stomach, bladder and intestines of the deceased were found empty and the theory advanced by him was that the deceased early in the morning had gone to the fields for attending the call of nature and after easing himself was attacked mercilessly by the assailants and killed. He also stressed that the narration of the occurrence in the F.I.R. Does not stand to reason as in the presence of close relation of the deceased nobody can inflict so many injuries on the person of the deceased nor the P.Ws.
6. Could be expected to standby just to watch the tragic drama without raising a finger-to rescue the deceased. He added that after the receipt of initial blows the deceased fell on the ground lying prostrate having his chest downward and back upward and since no injury has been caused to him on his back the charge against Jehanzeb petitioner for causing injury to him while he was lying on the ground was belied by the medical evidence. The learned High Court has fairly dealt with these assertions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and negatived them. The I.O. On visiting the spot found the pair of bullocks and the yoke on the spot. The Patwari Halqa in his statement in Court as P.W.2 admitted under cross-examination that Khasra No, 618 where the occurrence took place had already been ploughed and he had noticed this at the time of the spot inspection, though he did not make specific mention in the site plans Exhs. PB and Ex. PB/1-2. It is evident from the reply given by him in the cross-examination that the village of the complainant party is at a distance of 400/500 yards from the place of occurrence, and as such, it was not necessary for the deceased to take his breakfast first and then proceed to the filed for ploughing the land. It was the month of July and normally the cultivators go to the fields early in the morning for ploughing their lands and-do not wait till the breakfast is ready because after the sunrise the bullocks experience hardship and the progress likely to be achieved is considerably diminished. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the receipt of first blows the deceased was lying just like a statue is equally not acceptable to commonsense. With the receipt of successive injuries the body of the deceased must have been changing directions. No doubt that the deceased had other enemies as well but this fact alone is not sufficient to cast aspersion on the veracity of the P.Ws.
7. There is no reason why should they falsely implicate the petitioners and leave the real culprit go scot free with whom they might have more serious enmity than the petitioners. The learned trial Court as well as the High Court on the proper appraisal of the evidence have found the petitioners guilty for the murder of the deceased and finding no legal error in the impugned judgment, we are not persuaded to interfere therein.
8. ' Resultantly, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.