' MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---It is case of the prosecution that on 28-2-1989 at about 2-30 p.m.
The petitioners Muhammad Khan and his elder brother Muhammad Sharif with shotguns fired at deceased Muhammad Ashraf and killed him there and then. After pelting stones at him they escaped. The incident was witnessed by Muhammad Bashir, complainant and witnesses Mulazim Hussain and Muhammad Shafique.
2. The motive assigned for the murder was that Mst. Bilqis Begum daughter of deceased Muhammad Ashraf was married to the petitioner, Muhammad Khan. Due to. Strained relations with the petitioner she was living with her father, the deceased. Besides, petitioner Muhammad Khan had obtained a loan of Rs,15,000 from the deceased. The deceased had pressed hard the petitioner to divorce his wife and return his money. It offended the petitioner Muhammad Khan. He and his brother, therefore, killed the deceased.
3. Both the brothers faced trial before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhelum. Prosecution in all produced twelve witnesses. They denied their involvement in the case and canvassed innocence.
They examined witnesses in defence to disprove the motive.
4.' The learned Sessions Judge found them guilty for offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,20,000 each, in default to suffer R.I. For two years, Fine if recovered be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.
5. They filed appeal before the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench and the same was dismissed on 29-11-1994.
6. They both have challenged their conviction and sentences before this Court and sought for grant of leave to appeal.
7. In support of the petition Mr. Muhammad Akram Ch., the learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia contended that:--
(i) The motive is false.
(ii) Eye-witnesses Muhammad Bashir and Mulazam Hussain are not only closely related to the deceased but chance witnesses also. Their evidence required strong corroboration which lacks. No reliance can be based on their evidence.
(iii) Medical evidence belies the ocular version.
8. It may be observed that the incident has taken place at 2-30 p.m., the report of the same was lodged with the Police Station, Pind Dadan Khan at 4-30. p.m. By Muhammad Bashir. The distance between police station and, the scene of offence is 12 miles. The F.I.R. As such has been lodged without loss of time. The F.I.R. Has been lodged by an eye-witness Muhammad Bashir. It bears name of another eye-witness Mulazam Hussain. It also contains names of both the petitioners, the weapons they carried and the role played by them. A The prompt lodging of the F.I.R. Rules out possibility of manipulation. The incident has taken place during broad daylight. The witnesses are closely related to the deceased as well as to the petitioners, They have no animosity with the petitioners, Their mere relationship with the deceased would not make them interested witnesses.
Their evidence has been relied upon by the two Courts below on cogent grounds. We also fmd no fault with their evidence. Their evidence inspires confidence and is sufficient to maintain conviction.
9. Motive of the incident has been projected in the F.I.R. Witnesses Muhammad Bashir, Mst. Bilqis Begum and Syed Izhar Hussain Shah have reiterated the same before the trial Court who believed it. The appellate Court approved the same. We also see no reason to take a different view. The motive as such stands proved and corroborates ocular account.
10. We have gone through the medical evidence. It does not conflict with ocular evidence. On the contrary it commensurate with the numbers of shots. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners stressed that the injuries on the person of the deceased could be caused by one shot but not more than that. To substantiate his contention he drew our attention to the cross- examination of the Medical Officer, who has admitted that injuries Nos.2 and 3 could be result of one shot. Injury No,4 is result of independent shot. Injuries Nos.5 and 6 could be due to spread of pellets of the same shot. Injury No,6 could be result of shot which caused injury No,2. It may be observed that it is opinion of the Medical Officer. He has shown only possibilities. He has not given definite reply that the injuries could be result of one shot. Even otherwise evidence of Medical Officer reflects that the injuries on the person of the deceased were c caused by more than one shot. Medical evidence too corroborates ocular version.
11. There are concurrent findings of the facts by the two Courts below. We do not find any infirmity with the impugned judgments which may call for interference of this Court. There is no merit in the petition, which as such is dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.