' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 16-2-1993.
2. The petitioners were convicted by the trial Court on 1-3-1988 and sentenced under sections 302/149, P.P.C. And 148/149, P.P.C. The petitioners appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
3. The facts, as stated in the First Information Report, are as under:-- "That one Mst. Khurshid Bibi was married to Salamat Ali deceased. About 14/15 days prior to the occurrence, Salamat had gone to his father-in-law, Bhag Ali, alias Bhaga, complainant, in village Dhala Kalan. On his return, Bagh Ali complainant accompanied Salamat Ali to his house, one day prior to the occurrence, for village Chheena Otar. At 9 p.m. Asghar P.W also went to the house of Salamat deceased as he had some personal arrangements with Nawab P.W. Ashgar, Bhag Ali complainant and Salamat deceased left for the house of Nawab at about 11 p.m. When they reached near the house of Rafique appellant, both Rafique and Siddique armed with hatchets, Taj Din, Ramzan, Khushi Muhammad, having Sotas came out in the street and were identified in moon light. Khushi Muhammad appellant challenged that Salamat be taught a lesson for having abducted Jano, Taj Din gave Sota blow, which hit Salamat Ali on his head. Khushi Muhammad and Ratnzan also gave Sota blows on the back and legs of Salamat deceased. Salamat Ali fell down."
' According to the prosecution, the petitioners carried Salamat Ali to the courtyard of the house of Muhammad Rafique. The petitioners Siddique and Rafique gave hatchet blows on the head and back of Salamat Ali. Salamat Ali died at the spot. On the cries of P.Ws. Muhammad Aslam and Mst.
Rani P.Ws. Reached there. The petitioners brought Mst. Ramzan Bibi alias Jano, wife of Muhammad Siddique petitioner, to the house of Muhammad Rafique and having made her to lie near Salamat Ali; Taj Din, Ramzan and Khushi Muhammad accused gave hatchet blows on her neck.
4. The motive for the crime was that about 7/8 months prior to the occurrence Mst. Ramzan Bibi alias Jano was abducted by Salamat Ali deceased and was restored to her relatives through Panchayat. The prosecution has established the case against the petitioners through the ocular testimony of Bagh Ali P.W.7 and Mst. Rani P.W.8. The incriminating articles were recovered in the presence of P.W.6 and the recoveries had been used against the petitioners. The reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist were in positive. The accused denied the charge. However, the petitioner Siddique stated that he had found both the deceased in a comprising condition therefore, under grave and sudden provocation he caused injuries to both the deceased who died at the spot.
5. The above noted pieces of evidence are sufficient to convict the petitioners for the offence they were charged. As regards the plea of grave and sudden provocation, the High Court has appropriately dealt with it. The High Court observed as follows:-- "The place where Mst. Jano deceased and Salamat deceased were murdered is a courtyard of the house of the appellants and not in room so in these circumstances it does not believe to reason that both the deceased has adopted comprising position in the open courtyard when both Rafique and Siddique appellants have been shown living in one compound. Moreover, the occurrence took place in May when the people in the villages sleep outside either in the courtyard or on the roofs of their houses; so the question of both the deceased being in compromising position is overruled.
Such a large number of injuries, as stated above, could not have been caused at the hands of a single accused. The version of Siddique appellant that he had two weapons with him at the time of occurrence is not worth to be relied upon because no person can be expected to use two weapons simultaneously under such circumstances when two young persons were the victims. Medical evidence that different types of weapons were used actually belies the defense version."
The above fading of the High Court is not open to exception. The evidence has been properly appreciated. There is no misreading of evidence.
' This petition has no substance. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for refused.