' MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---It is of the prosecution that on 18-3-1981 at 2-30 a.m. Appellant Liaqat All committed murder of deceased Muhammad Rafique. He was apprehended along with Tasha, the weapon of offence, at the spot by witnesses Rashid Ahmad, Sadr Din and Muhammad Ibrahim and produced by them at the Police Station at 3-00 a.m. Khan Muhammad, Head Constable, recorded the F.I.R. He recovered the Tasha, the weapon of offence, and blood-stained clothes of the appellant. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. W.B. All Bhatt on the same day at 12-00 noon. After usual investigation the appellant was sent for trial before the Court. The case proceeded before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bahawalnagar, where the prosecution examined in all nine witnesses. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the allegations and disputed presence of the witnesses at the place of incident and contended that he was arrested on 19-3-1981 from his house by Head Constable Khan Muhammad, and was falsely implicated in the case. He produced seven witnesses in his defense.
Vide judgment dated 31-10-1983 the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bahawalnagar, discarded the defence of the appellant and held that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. He, therefore, convicted him under section 302, P.P.C.
And awarded him sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs,5,000, in default whereof to undergo R.I. For one year more. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence before the Lahore High Court at Bahawalpur Bench. The same was dismissed on 16-4-1986. The appellant moved an application through jail to the same Court for grant of benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., which was allowed to him on 27-5-1992. On 25-8-1992 the appellant through Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur, moved petition challenging his conviction and sentence before this Court. He also moved an application for condo nation of the delay on the ground that his relatives had promised that they would file appeal, but they did not do so, hence he filed appeal with delay, which may be condoned. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on the following grounds:--- "Prosecution case is mainly dependent on the eye-witnesses' account given by Rashid Ahmad P.W.4, Sadar Din P.W.5, and Muhammad Ibrahim P.W.6, brother, father and brother-in-law respectively of the deceased Muhammad Rafiq. All the three live in Haroonabad at a distance of 20/25 miles from the place of occurrence Fort Abbas. The defense plea was that they were informed on telephone next morning when one of the D.Ws. Came to the shop of deceased and found him murdered. Including him seven D.Ws. Appeared in defense. Evidence of the telephonic call was also produced. It appears to me that closer A scrutiny of the entire evidence is required.
Leave to appeal may be granted."
2. We have heard Mr. Iltaf Elahi Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court, for the appellant and Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
3. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, on 16- 4-1986. He did not file any appeal before the Supreme Court. He moved application before the same Court in May, 1992, requesting for benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. After getting benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. On 27-5-1992, he filed petition before this Court in August, 1992. Obviously the appeal is time-barred by 2127 days. The reasons given by the 1-3 appellant for condensation of delay are not sustainable. The appeal as such is hopelessly time-barred.
4. However, on merits, the incident had taken place on 18-3-1981 at 2-30 a.m. The appellant was apprehended by witnesses Rashid Ahmad, Sadar Din and Muhammad Ibrahim at the spot along with the weapon of offence. Within half an hour he was produced at the Police Station where Head Constable Khan Muhammad arrested him, took into possession the Tesha, the weapon of, offence, and blood-stained clothes, shirt and Chaddar. The abovesaid articles are certified to contain human blood by the Chemical Examiner. In such view of the fact the presence of the witnesses at the spot cannot be doubted at all. The learned High Court has dealt with the evidence of the prosecution in the words as under:--- "The death of Muhammad Rafiq, deceased, by violence at the place and time alleged by the prosecution is not disputed. Motive for the offence is also not denied by the appellant. This case mainly hinges on the ocular testimony. The eye-witnesses claim to have seen the occurrence and captured the appellant red-handed along with the weapon of offence. The sole question for determination in this case is whether ocular testimony is believable or not? It is true that the three eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased, i,e, Rashid Ahmad, complainant (P.W.4) is the real brother, Sadar Din (P.W.5) is the father and Muhammad Ibrahim (P.W.6) is the brother-in-law, of the deceased. This is also admitted that they all live in Harunabad 20/25 miles away from the place of occurrence. Their claim is that they came to see the deceased on the evening of the night of occurrence. They took their evening meals with the deceased, talked for quite some time and then the deceased slept inside the shop while the witnesses slept outside it. At 2-30 a.m.
(midnight) the witnesses got up hearing the shrieks of the deceased and saw the appellant inflicting Tesha blows on him and captured him at the spot and relieved him of blood-stained Tasha P.5, took him to the nearby Police Station and producing him there along with Testier P.5 lodged the F.I.R. The defense has vehemently disputed preskt.d4: of witnesses on the spot or their having caught the appellant red-handed with Tesha, P.S.
5. The learned High Court took further view that:- "it is not believable that the police took risk of incorporating the factum of arrest of the appellant in the F.I.R. On the expectation that it would arrest him next day."
6. The Court has further observed that "there is no previous enmity between the eye-witnesses and the appellant and, therefore, they had no motive to falsely implicate him. Their evidence cannot be discarded merely because they are related to the deceased.
7. The defense version was discarded for the reasons that:--- "Defense version that relatives (eye-witnesses) of the deceased were informed at Harunabad about the murder of Muhammad Rafiq by Faiz Muhammad (D.W.3) on Telephone No, 731/732 through Muhammad Bashir son of Amin is not established because aforementioned Muhammad Bashir has not appeared to support this version. Again, the owner of telephone No,2 Fort Abbas, allegedly, used by Faiz Muhammad D.W. For conveying the message to Harunabad has not appeared to state that he had allowed Faiz Muhammad D.W. To use his telephone for conveying the message about the murder of Muhammad Rafiq to Muhammad Bashir for further informing relatives of the deceased."
8. We have gone through the judgments passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. They have properly scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution and that of defence and have arrived at right conclusions. We do not see any reason to interfere with them. In result of our above observations the appeal is dismissed as time-barred as well as on merits.