' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 5-11-1995, passed in Criminal Appeal No,8 of 1993 and Murder Reference No,17 of 1993.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 30-9-1991 at 9-30 a.m. a case under section 302, P.P.C. Was registered with Police Station Channi Goth, District Bahawalpur, against Bakhat Ali appellant, at the instance of Muhammad Abdullah complainant (P.W.7) for the murder of Mst. Naseem Mai deceased. On the day of occurrence, in the morning, Muhammad Abdullah complainant was on his way to the house of his sister Mst. Naseem Mai deceased to see her where he came across Allah Nawaz (given up P.W.) and Saeed Ahmed P.W.8, residents of Basti Manglan, who were also going to Basti Kharlan. While talking with one another they headed towards Basti Kharlan. When at about 8-30 a.m. They reached near the house of Mst. Naseem Mai deceased, they heard an alarm from inside the house. The complainant alongwith the aforesaid P.Ws. Entered into the house of the deceased and saw Bakhat Ali appellant, armed with a hatchet, giving blows to the deceased. The complainant and the P.Ws. Tried to catch hold of him but he ran away. Mst. Naseem Mai, lying in a pool of blood, died at the spot.
3. The motive for the offence was that Bakhat Ali appellant wanted his sister-in-law (Bahbee) Mst.
Naseem Mai deceased to arrange his marriage in exchange of her daughter but the deceased did not agree to it. They often quarrelled with each other on this issue. Bakhat Ali appellant was alleged to be annoyed with the deceased on that score.
4. Walayat Khan (P.W.10), S.I./S.H.O., Police Station Channi Goth investigated the case. He arrested the appellant on 8-10-1991, who, under police custody, led to the recovery of blood-stained hatchet P.4. After completing the investigation, he challaned the appellant.
' The appellant did not plead guilty to the charge. To prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses.
5. The learned trial Court, vide its judgment, dated 20-1-1993, convicted Bakhat Ali appellant under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death with a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default to undergo one year R.I. The fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of Mst. Naseem Mai deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
6. On appeal, filed by the appellant, a Division Bench of the High Court, vide judgment, dated 5-11- 1995, maintained his conviction and sentence.
7. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide order, dated 17-3-1997, to consider whether the principles laid down by this Court for the safe administration of criminal justice were correctly followed while appraising the evidence produced before the Courts below.
8. It is contended that both the eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased, and Allah Nawaz the third eye-witness was given up, and further that the motive was shrouded in mystery. There is conflict between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, it is added.
9. No doubt, Muhammad Abdullah, P.W.7 and Saeed Ahmad P.W.8 are closely related to the deceased, but in the absence of any motive on their part to falsely implicate the appellant in a case of the present nature they cannot be termed as interested witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside merely for the reason that they did not mention any particular injury in their statements before the police. Their stand corroborated by the recovery of blood-stained hatchet at the instance of the appellant. Human blood was found on it by the Serologist. The injuries found on the deceased are characteristic of the hatchet alleged to be used by the appellant. Being a case of single accused, there was no question of substitution. Moreover, it was a day time occurrence and the eyewitnesses fully acquainted with the appellant could not have made any mistake in his identification. The appellant is the real brother of the husband of the deceased and if he had been falsely implicated his brother would have certainly come forward in his defence.
10. In the wake of the circumstances discussed above, the motive was insignificant and no concession can be given to the appellant who had acted so brutally that he caused as many as 7 injuries on the person of the deceased ranging from 4 to 13 c.m. There is nothing on the record to indicate that any other person was also interested in doing away with the deceased.
11. For what has been discussed above, the appellant was rightly convicted and appropriately sentenced. Thus, finding no substance, the appeal is dismissed.