' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.----Petitioner, Allah Bukhsh, has impugned the judgment dated 17-2- 2000 of a learned Division Bench, Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby Criminal Appeal No,176 of 1997 and Murder Reference No,138 of 1997 were decided, dismissing the appeal filed by him and affirming his death sentence awarded to him by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal.
2. The occurrence took place on 16-9-1993 at about 4-00 a.m. In the area of Chak No,26/15-L, within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station City Mian Channun. The distance between the scene of occurrence and said police station is about two kilometres. F.I.R. Was lodged by Muhammad Ramzan complainant. It was registered, under section 302, P.P.C., on said date at 6-10 a.m.
3. The motive, as set up in F.I.R., was that two days prior to the occurrence, a dispute arose between Mst. Bashiran Bibi and Mst. Amina. Bibi, on some domestic affairs. Mst. Bashiran Bibi deceased was the wife of the complainant and Mst. Amina is the wife of the petitioner.
4. It is alleged that Mst. Amina Bibi complained to the petitioner that she was insulted by Mst.
Bashiran Bibi. The petitioner felt annoyed over the alleged conduct of Mst. Bashiran Bibi and belaboured her, who complained to her brother. The complainant and his father Muhammad Sadiq admonished the petitioner and warned him not to visit their house.
5. On the night of occurrence, the complainant, Khan, Sultan and his brother Muhammad Lal Din, were sleeping at an open place in front of the complainant's house on four cots. At about 4-00 a.m.
They heard cries of Mst. Bashiran Bibi deceased and had seen the petitioner causing hatchet belows to Mst. Bashiran Bibi. Therefore, the petitioner succeeded in running away from there. Mst.
Bashiran Bibi had sustained hatchet injuries and succumbed to her injuries within a few minutes.
Leaving Muhammad Lal Din and Khan P.Ws. Near dead body, the complainant had gone for lodging F.I.R., which was recorded by Zahoor Ahmed, A.S.-I. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Court having jurisdiction in the matter.
6. At trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses namely Dr. Muhammad Yousaf P.W.1, Muhammad Iqbal Draftsman P.W.2, Muhammad Iqbal No,348/C P.W.3, Khadim Hussain P.W.4, Muhammad Ramzan P.W.5, Muhammad Lal Din P.W .6, Zakaullah S.-I. P.W.7, Abdul Rashid, Inspector P.W.9 and Zahoor Hussain, S.-I. P.W.9.
7. The petitioner in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution's allegations and claimed to be innocent. He stated that he was falsely implicated in this case by the complainant party. According to him, prior to the incident he had joined investigation in a murder case of one Waryam son of Dara and Khan Muhammad was accused in that case. He maintained that because of grudge, he was involved in this false case. Neither he examined himself on oath nor produced any witness in defence. The following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:-- "(1) An incised wound measuring 6 x 1-1/2" into 4" on the left side of face, cutting the skin, left zygomatic bone and left maxillary bone, completely, through and through, obliquely going downwards and deep, cutting all the soft tissues and all the major and minor blood vessels in the left triangel of neck.
(2) A incised wound measuring 5 x 2 x 4" deep in conjunction of wound No,1 on the left side of face going deeply and downwards, obliquely cutting the skin underlying muscles all the blood vessels in the left triangle of neck and deep in the face, the zygomatic bone and maxillary bones are completely cut down.
(3) An incised wound on left side of face combined with wound Nos.1 and 2 measuring 2 x 1 x 4" deep cutting the left ear zygomatic bone, maxillary bone and underlying soft tissues and all the blood vessels coming in the way of depth of wound very bdly."
' Accordingly to the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to above injuries, which were ante-mortem and were caused by sharp-edged weapon.
8. On assessm ent of the evidence brought on record, learned trial Judge believed the ocular account furnished by Muhammad Ramzan complainant and Muhammad Lal Din P.W. Learned trial Judge also held that motive was established and medical evidence corroborated the ocular version.
9. Before High Court, it was argued that it was an unwitnessed crime and Muhammad Ramzan and Lal Din had not witnessed it. Also it was argued that medical evidence was in conflict with ocular account as the injuries on the person of the deceased appeared to have been caused by a single blow and not by three blows. The plea was also taken that no light was available at the scene of occurrence, as such, there was no occasion to identify the culprits. It was also contended that F.I.R.
Was lodged after preliminary investigation, therefore, it deserved to be rejected outrightly. It was also argued that recovery of hatchet was not proved.
10. Having taken into consideration all the pleas raised on behalf of the parties, learned High Court reached the following conclusion:- ' "We have heard respective arguments of both the sides with our utmost dedication and have carefully gone through the material evidence in the light of arguments. We find that occurrence of the alleged incident took place on 16-9-1993 at about 4-00 a.m. In the area of Chak No,126/15-L. It is about two kilometers away from the police station concerned Muhammad Ramzan complainant (P.W.5) immediately left for the police station to lay information with the police. The crime report was lodged at 6-10- a.m. The same day with great promptitude. This fact establishes his presence at the spot. He furnished names of Muhammad Lal Din- and other witnesses, who were available at the spot during the course of occurrence. No doubt Muhammad Lal Din (P.W.6) is his brother, the appellant and his particulars were fully known to the witnesses. They named him as killer of Mst.
Bashiran Bibi deceased and described with great accuracy parts played by him at the spot. They were attracted to the spot on hearing the commotion raised by Mst. Bashiran Bibi. They saw the appellant inflicting side of facial region of the deceased. Wounds caused by the appellant proved fatal."
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner before us strenuously argued that testimony of the eye- witnesses namely, Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Lal Din, does not inspire confidence. It is also urged that they have not witnessed the crime and no reliance can be placed on their testimony. He contended that there was no specific reason for the witnesses on that particular night to sleep outside the Ehatta. He specifically pointed out that in cross-examination the complainant stated that the petitioner had given three hatchet blows to his wife, whereas so was not recorded in F.I.R. Referring to the statement of Muhammad Lal Din P.W., learned counsel submitted that the witness in his statement maintained that he and P.Ws. Had not chased the petitioner, but attended the deceased. According to learned counsel, under the circumstances, natural mode of action guided by behavioural instinct would have been to chase the petitioner.
12. We have thoroughly examined the statements of the two eyewitnesses and do not find any material to discard their testimony, which was rightly believed both by trial Court, and High Court.
Their presence at the scene of offence was proved beyond any shadow of doubts. They had no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner. Their testimony was corroborated by medical evidence.
There was no question of mistaken identity. P.Ws. Knew the petitioner very well even before the occurrence. It was the petitioner and the petitioner alone, who killed the deceased. Primarily, it is the function of trial Court and High Court to sift the evidence in its true perspective for doing justice between the parties and this Court would not review the evidence simply on the ground that different conclusion could be drawn if the evidence would have been evaluated from a different angle. We have noticed that it is not -a case of misreading or non-reading of evidence nor of appraising the evidence by ignoring the established judicial norms laid down by the superior Courts. It is a practice of this Court not to interfere with appreciation of evidence done by High Court, particularly when trial Court and High Court have recorded concurrent findings and no law point is raised, which could provide a ground to reverse the findings recorded by two Courts below.
To interfere in concurrent findings recorded by two Courts below relating to appraisal of evidence is exceptional, which of course can be resorted when it is manifested that appraisal of evidence was misdirected and had ultimately resulted into miscarriage of justice. No such aspect was identified. It was a planned and brutal murder and was to be awarded by death penalty.
13. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.