1. GHULAM SAFDAR SHAH, J.--This leave petition is meant to impugn the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 24-1-1978, by which the appeal of petitioner, against his conviction by the trial Judge under section 302, P. P. C., was dismissed and the death sentence awarded to him confirmed under reference made to the Court under section 374, Cr. P. C.
2. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 21-6-1976, at about 8-00 a.m., in village Parhana- cum-Bagh (Police Station Bagnotar) in which the petitioner is said to have shot the deceased to death with a rifle. The F. I. R. Of occurrence was lodged at Bagnotar Police Station, at a distance of 10-12 miles, by Khushal Khan (P. W. 7) on the same day saying therein that at about 8-00 a.m. He and Muhammad Suleman (P. W. 8) had gone to the spot in order to measure the disputed boundary, separating the lands of parties herein, respecting which the deceased had complained on the previous day that it had been interfered -with by the accused party and consequently they had encroached upon a part of his own land. That on reaching the spot he called Gul Zaman to come forward with a view to settling the dispute. But on this Gul Zaman ordered his son (petitioner) to kill the deceased. In obedience to the said order, the petitioner who was armed with a rifle, fired at the deceased as a result of which he was hit on the left side of his chest, was failed to the - ground and consequently lost his life. The F. I. R. Ends with the narration that the occurrence was also witnessed by P. Ws. Suleman and further that the deceased had been killed on account of his dispute with the accused party over the common boundary of their respective lands.
3. The record would show that the F. I. R. In question was recorded by a Moharrir Head Constable of Police Station, Bagnotar. However, since the S. H. O. Of the said police station was said to have gone to Police Post Nawan Shehr, he informed him on telephone about the occurrence. On receipt of the telephone message the S. H. O. Proceeded to Abbottabad, where the dead body of the deceased had been taken, and on arrival at the Police Hospital there he prepared the usual injury sheet and Inquest Report of the dead body, thereafter sent the body for post-mortem examination and himself proceeded to the place of occurrence. On the spot, he carried out the usual investigation and then arrested the petitioner and his father Gul Zaman. After completing the investigation thus the two of them were challaned in the Court of Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, to stand their trial under section 302/34, P. P: C. For the murder of deceased Qalandar.
4. In trial Court the prosecution relied on the eye-witness account of Khushal Khan (P. W. 7) and Suleman (P. W. 8). It also relied on the motive as well as the medical evidence. In their statements under section 342, Cr. P. C., however, Gul Zaman (since acquitted) denied the case of prosecu-- tion. He, however, admitted that a day before the occurrence his son (petitioner) had given beating to the deceased; that on the flay of occurrence the deceased came to his house armed with gun and fired at him but some--how the bullet did not hit him. In regard to the death of Qalandar, however, he offered no explanation whatsoever. In so far as the petitioner is concerned he too denied the occurrence. However, he admitted that the deceased had fired at his father who somehow escaped. But in regard to the death of Qalandar he also has offered no explanation.
5. The learned trial Judge, by scrutinising the evidence on record, believed the two eye-witnesses namely, Khushal and Suleman, accordingly convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to death.
6. In the case of his father (Gul Zaman) the trial Judge did not believe the said two witnesses that he had exhorted his son to shoot Qalandar and consequently giving him the benefit of doubt the Court acquitted him. As already stated the High Court upheld the judgment of the learned trial Judge and consequently the death penalty awarded to the petitioner was confirmed.
7. Mr. Zafar Mahmood the learned counsel for petitioner has taken us through the judgment of High Court as well as the evidence on record. In a very half-hearted manner be attempted to pick out certain contradictions from the evidence of the two eye-witnesses to show that they were wrongly believed by the Courts below. But with respect his endeavour must fail because the contradictions in question are wholly trivial and of no conse--quence. The learned counsel also argued that the two eye-witnesses in this case were closely related to the deceased and so they should have been n disbelieved unless, of course, their evidence was corroborated which, however, is not the case.
8. There is no force in this contention either. It is true that ' the two eye-witnesses are related to the deceased. But there was no serious enmity between the parties and so it is inconceivable that they would involve the petitioner in this case without any reason. It is in evidence that the deceased had been away for about six months, had returned to the village only a day before the occurrence and that when he discovered that a part of his land has been encroached upon by the accused party he went to their house and complained but he was beaten by the petitioner. From this it should be obvious that there was no question of any serious enmity between him and the petitioner so as to sustain the contention of the learned counsel that the eye-witnesses in this case were inimical and their evidence should have been disbelieved in the absence of any independent corroboration.
9. The learned counsel lastly argued that in view of the tender age of the petitioner he should have been awarded the lesser penalty, namely, the sentence of imprisonment for life. But in this respect the finding of the High Court is against him. It was noted by the High Court that when the petitioner committed the crime he was 20 years old as also that he was pursuing his independent life and was not under the influence of his father. By going through the record we agree with this conclusion. On a very petty matter, the petitioner has taken the life of Qalandar in cold blood. And so he does not deserve any leniency.
10. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.