' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Zakir Hussain petitioner through this jail petition seeks leave to appeal from judgment dated 15-4-1991 of the Lahore High Court, whereby the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, dated 27-1-1988, convicting him under section 302, P.P.C. And awarding him sentence of death and fine for the murder of Mst. Parveen was maintained and his appeal was dismissed.
2. The prosecution version in brief as disclosed in the F.I.R., lodged by Mazhar Hussain at Police Station Parianwali, District Gujrat, at 10-45 a.m. On 13-4-1986, was that at about 10 a.m. The deceased alongwith her daughter Mst. Zar Nageen were returning from field with fodder. The complainant, Zaffar Hussain P.W. 4 and Muhammad Asghar (given up P.W.) were going towards the Dera of deceased. She had hardly reached near the wheat field of one Sadiq, when Zakir Hussain petitioner, armed with rifle emerged from the field. He fired at the deceased from behind, hitting her in the head. She fell down. The complainant and the witnesses rushed towards the scene of occurrence. On seeing them, the petitioner fired in the air and made good his escape.
3. Mst. Parveen succumbed to the injury at the spot. The murder was allegedly committed by the petitioner in conspiracy with Mst. Fatima Bibi acquitted accused.
4. The motive for the occurrence was that Mst. Hussain Bibi mother of Mst. Parveen owned some land in the village, which was in cultivating possession of the petitioner. The owner wanted to give the land to her daughter Mst. Parveen which was not liked by the petitioner. A night preceding the date of occurrence he proclaimed that he would not leave her in a position to get the land.
5. Dr. Nazir Ahmed Anwar, conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body at 5 p.m. On the same day and found following injuries on her dead body:
(i) A fire-arm wound of inlet 1-1/4 c.m. x 1-1/4 c.m. Over the back of left pinna, going into the base of skull towards the right side of the face.
(ii) A fire-arm wound of exit 8 c.m. x 7 c.m. Over the right side of the face. A black spot near injury No,1 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. And another over the left upper arm in an area of 5 c.m. x 5 c.m. Were present.
6. Tufail Hayat, S.I. (P.W.10) investigated the case. He arrested the petitioner on 19-4-1986 and while in custody led to the recovery of rifle ' on 26-4-1986.
7. At the trial, Mazhar Hussain complainant, his brother Zaffar Hussain and Mst. Zar-Nageen furnished ocular account of the occurrence.
' The petitioner and his co-accused in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Professed innocence and led no evidence in defence.
8. The learned trial Judge relied on the ocular evidence furnished by the prosecution and found the same amply corroborated by medical evidence of motive. Resultantly, on 27-1-1988, he convicted the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death and fine of Rs,10,000 to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation or in default to undergo R.I. For one year.
9. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of the learned trial Judge in appeal which was dismissed vide impugned judgment passed by the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court.
10. In support of this petition learned counsel contended that both Mazhar Hussain complainant and Zaffar Hussain P.Ws. Belonged to another village, were not present at the scene of occurrence, therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon for awarding capital punishment upon the petitioner. This contention was advanced on behalf of the petitioner before the High-Court but the same was repelled. These witnesses being closely related to the parties, their presence on the village and having witnessed the occurrence was not something unnatural. We are in full agreement with the finding of the High Court that the deposition of Mst. Zar-Nageen who was accompanying her mother at the time of occurrence inspired confidence.
11. The occurrence took place in the broad daylight on a path leading to the village. Zaffar Hussain and the complainant were going to the Dera while A Mst. Zar-Nageen was with her mother. The ocular evidence furnished by the above three witnesses is consistent. The petitioner being closely related to the P.Ws. Could not be falsely substituted for the real culprit.
12. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and the State as also by perusing evidence on record, in our view, the prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilt of the petitioner on the murder charge. The leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
13. Nevertheless, we find that the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court on 27-1-1988, and amnesty proclaimed by the President of Pakistan vide Notification dated 7-12-1988, covered his case and his sentence of death stood converted into imprisonment for life, as held by this Court in Eid Muhammad and another v. The State (PLD 1993 SC 17).
' On the request of the learned counsel for petitioner, we grant the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
For computing the period of his imprisonment.
' Subject to the observation made above this petition stands disposed of.