1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-Petitioner Muhammad Gul was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali under section 302, P. P. C. By order dated the 8th January 1969, to death for causing the murder of Ghulam Mohammad, his co-villager in the area of village Samandwala, Police Station, Muchh, in the District of Mianwali. His conviction was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1969 (Murder Reference No. 40 of 1969), by judgment dated the 19th February 1970. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment.
2. The prosecution case is that on the night of 28th March 1968, at about khuftan time, the deceased, along with his son Ghulam Qadir and Muhammad, his uterine brother, was going for prayer to the mosque. Ghulam Qadir was carrying a lantern in his hand. When they reached near the mosque, the petitioner came armed with a rifle and shouted that he would avenge the insult and fired. The deceased was hit on the abdomen. He fell down. At the time when the deceased was hit, he was about to enter the door of the mosque. Ghulam Qadir P. W. Stood by the wall of the mosque and Muhammad P. W. Came in between him and the petitioner. Mehr Muhammad P. W. 12, at that time, was coming from his house to the mosque. He also saw the occurrence. On hue and cry, the petitioner left through the northern lane. The deceased was still alive and was put on a cot for being taken to Muchh Police Station but he died when he reached Dilfewali bridge. His dead body was brought to the village and was placed in the courtyard of the house of Ujal Khan P. W.
3. The motive of the murder is said to be the refusal of the deceased to give the hand of his daughter Mst. Walayat Khatun to Ghulam Jillani, a nephew of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner suspected Ghulam Qadir to be on illicit terms with his sister Mst. Bakhtawar and in order to remove the sense of public humiliation, he requested the deceased through Ujal Khan P. W. To give the hand of his daughter Mst. Walayat Khatun to Ghulam Jillani.
4. The conviction of the petitioner is based on the testimony of Ghulam Qadir P. W. 10, who is the son of the deceased, Muhammad P. W. 11, who is a uterine brother of the deceased and Mehr Muhammad P. W. 12, who is a paternal aunt's son of the deceased. It is true that these witnesses are related to the deceased but they appear to be the natural witnesses. Ghula Qadir is the son of the deceased, Muhammad P. W. 11 was also present in his house in connection with the celebration of the marriage of the daughter of the deceased. The place occurrence is outside the door of the mosque and is a strong piece of corroboration that the deceased was going to offer his prayer at the time of incident. The dead body of the deceased was lying in the house of Ujal Khan and this also corroborates the prosecution story that the place of occurrence was near the mosque.
5. Mr. D. M. Awan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the prosecution story that the deceased was taken to Muchh Police Station and his dead body was brought back after he had died has been discarded by the High Court. According to the learned counsel, in these circumstances, the first information report which was lodged at 4-00 a.m. Was lodged after a long delay and much reliance cannot be placed on the version given in the said report. This argument was also advanced in the High Court and was repelled on the ground that the prosecution has gained nothing by this delay. Only one assailant has been named. There is no previous background of enmity between the parties. We are also of the opinion that the delay remained unexplained but no importance can be attached to it as the prosecution has gained nothing out of it. It was next urged that Ghulam Qadir was present on the scene of occurrence and if the motive was to take revenge he would have been the first target. This contention also has no force. It depends on the peculiar psychological condition of the accused at the time of the incident and one cannot say as to why the deceased was killed and Ghulam Qadir was left. It may be by chance.
6. Mr. D. M. Awan, learned counsel for the petitioner, also contended that in the F. I. R., the weapon used is shown as gun while at the trial it is shown as rifle. We have gone through the F. I. R., it is in Urdu and the weapon used is described as bandook. This term can be used both for gun and a rifle.
7. Lastly, it was urged that according to the description of the incident, the deceased should have been hit on the back side and not from the front side. There is no force in this contention because as pointed out by the High Court it may be that the deceased, after hearing the challenge, had turned to see as to who was throwing the challenge and the shot might have been hit at that time.
8. After going through the record, we are satisfied that the conviction of the petitioner is based on proper appreciation of the evidence. There is no force in this petition which is dismissed.