' Mr. Sher Afghan Khattak, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant and Kh. Azhar Rashhid learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State present and heard. Record of the case perused carefully.
2. The appellant stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 302, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,46, dated 31-5-1997 registered at Police Station, Leavy Post, Malakand Agency.
3. There is hardly any need to give the detail of the case in hand. Because the same has been elaborately given by the Sessions Judge/Zila Qazi. Malakand-at Batkhela (Mr. Miftahuddin Khan) in his judgment recorded on 14-9-1998.
4. In this unfortunate incident the appellant Wall Muhammad shot dead his young son, namely, Wasal Muhammad. The mother of the deceased i,e, wife of the accused/appellant reported the matter to the police, which formed the basis of the F.I.R.
4-A. After conducting the usual police investigation complete challan against the appellant- accused was submitted in the trial Court. At the end of the trial, the appellant was found guilty and was convicted under section 308, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo to 4 years imprisonment. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs,2.15,000 to the complainant as "Diyat".
5. Dissatisfied with the verdict of the trial Court, the appellant has filed this appeal from the jail.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to convince me that the judgment impugned herein is either arbitrary or perverse. Similarly he could not establish that the same was the result of non-reading or misreading of evidence.
7. In the circumstances, therefore, I am of the considered view that the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. The trial Court has assessed/appreciated the prosecution evidence and after discussing the same, along with the case-law produced before it, has given valid reasons for its conclusion. The trial Court has committed no illegality/material irregularity and its judgment is well founded. Accordingly I am not inclined to interfere with the verdict so recorded.
8. This appeal is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed.