' ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.---Petitioner was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan for the offence of committing Qatl-e-Amd of Mst. Shazia and finding him guilty of the charge convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. And awarded him death sentence by judgment, dated 14- 6-1997. This judgment of the trial Court was challenged in appeal in the High Court and a learned Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment, dated 11-5-1999, not only upheld the conviction and sentence but also directed the petitioner to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. This petition from jail through Superintendent of Jail has been moved by the petitioner to call in question the legality of the impugned judgment.
2. Abdul Majid (P.W:4) reported the murder of his daughter Mst. Shazia Parveen to the police at 9- 30 on 1-1-1994. It was stated in this report that he was working in the fields and his daughters Mst.
Shazia Parveen aged 16/17 years and Mst. Shahida Parveen were also present in the nearby fields.
In the meantime Akhtar Ali accused/petitioner reached near his daughters and raised 'Lalkara' that you Mst. Shazia would not be spared today. On the hue and cry of his daughters he, his brother Maqsood Ahmed (not produced) and Niamat Ali (P.W.5) who were present nearby, also reached. In their presence petitioner fired at his daughter Mst. Shazia with a pistol which hit her on back of left shoulder while the second shot fired by him also injured her on left arm and she fell down on the ground. Petitioner threatened them with dreadful consequences if they approached him. The injured was then taken to the hospital for treatment. Motive for the crime as disclosed was that some days before the occurrence the accused had cut obscene jokes with Mst. Shazia which she had resented and had abused the accused (petitioner) which had annoyed him and so to retaliate he fired at her.
3. The learned trial Judge based conviction on the following evidence:-- "(i) Ocular account,
(ii) Medical account, and
(iii) Motive."
' It was held that the two eye-witnesses Abdul Majid (P.W.4) and Niamat Ali (P.W.5) are natural witnesses as they were present in their fields where the occurrence took place and that their version of the murder was plausible, consistent and confidence inspiring. It was also held that the testimony of the eye-witnesses could not be discredited or rendered incredible by the prosecution in any manner in the cross-examination. Moreover, we find that none of the two eye-witnesses could be termed as interested witness because none had any previous or grudge against the petitioner. Merely, because P.W.4 is father of the deceased and P.W.5 belongs to the 'Baradari' of the deceased, would not make them interested as they had no reason to substitute the petitioner for the real killer. It is curious to note that the petitioner not to speak of proving could not even suggest in cross-examination to any of the witness any reason/ motive which prompted them to implicate him, in this heinous crime. The learned Judges in the High Court while affirming the finding of guilt rendered by the trial Court observed:-- "It is a case of single accused. There is no question of substitution. The occurrence had taken place in broad daylight. There was no question of mistaken identity. There was also no previous background of enmity between the parties, so there was no question of false implication in this case. Though, Abdul Majid P.W.4 complainant in the instant case is father of Mst. Shazia Parveen but he is a natural witness because he was present in the near fields of vegetables where Mst.
Shazia Parveen was present. Niamat All P.W. Though belongs to the brotherhood of the complainant but he is an impartial and uninterested witness. There is no earthly reason to disbelieve both these witnesses."
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that non-examination of Mst. Shahida Parveen and Maqsood Ahmed named as eyewitnesses in the F.LR. Detracts and diminishes the veracity of the prosecution case. It is to be noted that out of the two witnesses the former is daughter while the latter is brother of the complainant. The prosecution is not bound to produce all the eye-witnesses if it considers that the guilt could be established by examining some of the eye- witnesses. It has not been the case of the defence that the said two witnesses were not supporting the prosecution because in that case they could 6e examined as defence witnesses or the Court could be requested to summon them as Court witnesses. The prosecution probably considered the production of these two witnesses as unnecessary because in their 'testimony they were to repeat what had already been deposed by P.W.4 and P.W.S. We are of the view that this neither adversely affects the prosecution case nor the evidentiary value of the eye- witnesses who have been examined as P.W.4 and P.W.5. It was next pointed out that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. As the incident which occurred at 4-00 p.m. Was reported at 9-20 p.m. In this context it is to be noted that initially the report was recorded under section 324, P.P.C. As Mst. Shazia was alive at that time. It is in the statement of P.W.4:-- "We took Mst. Shazia injured from the spot for hospital after about one and half hours. We took half an hour to reach the hospital. We reached the hospital at 6 p.m. We did not send any person to the police station till 8 p.m. Hakumat Khan our neighbour was sent at the police station for information.
I had told the said Hakumat Khan about the incident to be transmitted to the police. Hakumat Khan came to the hospital and the police reached thereof. Hakumat Khan told me that he had given the information and the police will be following him. We did not ask the doctor to make telephonic call at the police station. Hakumat Khan came after about half an hour while the police came after about 45 minutes."
' This fully explains the alleged delay. Moreover, even if there appears some delay that is inconsequential in the circumstances of the present case; firstly, because this is a case in which single accused had been involved and secondly, there never existed previous animosity between the complainant and the accused to have prompted him to consult and deliberate in the intervening time to select petitioner for the charge . It was next pointed out that no woman accompanied the complainant to the police as they were of the view that the deceased was of immoral character. This is a fallacious argument and is based on speculation without any basis on record and nothing turns on such a baseless submission. It was also argued that the deceased when injured was not properly looked after otherwise she could be saved. This again is a frivolous argument which is without any foundation as the doctor or any other witness has not been asked any question of this aspect. P.W.3 Dr. Muhammad Mubashar Chaudhry stated that the injuries were dangerous to life and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further clarified: "Injuries Nos.1 and 2 individually and collectively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature."
' In the end, the learned counsel stressed that it was not a case in which death penalty could legally be imposed. However, he was unable to refer to any mitigating reason/ circumstance which could be considered for awarding the lesser penalty of life imprisonment. This was a brutal murder of a young girl of 15/16 years of age without any justification and the petitioner acted as desperate and hardened criminal and fired two shots at innocent girl and so the imposition of normal penalty of death was fully justified.
5. We find no merit in this petition and, accordingly, while refusing leave to appeal, dismiss it.