' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-7- 2001 passed by learned Lahore High Court (Multan Bench) whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioners namely Muhammad Zubair and Muhammad Sharif has been dismissed and the judgment dated 22-4-1998 passed by learned trial Court has been kept intact whereby Muhammad Zubair has been convicted under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to death while Muhammad Sharif has been awarded life imprisonment on the same score. However, the learned High Court has acquitted Muhammad Sharif, co-accused, of the charge. The petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of Meraj Din (deceased).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case "as contemplated in the F.I.R. (Exh.P.F.) are the complainant deals in powerlooms. On the eventful day, at about Maghrab Wela, he alongwith his younger brother Abbas Ali, and Muhammad Ramzan son of Rana, was busy in conversation with each other at a Chowk near his house. His son, Meraj Din alias Maja while going towards the mosque to offer Maghrib prayer passed therefrom. After few minutes, the complainant and his companion heard commotion raised by Meraj Din to the effect that he is going to be murdered. They immediately rushed towards a street near S.P. Chowk, where they saw Meraj Din being caught hold of by Muhammad Shafi appellant. He was saying to his brothers, Muhammad Zubair alias Jhara and Muhammad Sharif, who were armed with dagger and Chhurri, respectively, that he should not be spared. Within their view, Muhammad Zubair alias Jhara delivered a dagger blow on the chest of Meraj Din and thereafter Muhammad Sharif inflicted a Chhurri blow on his abdomen, Muhammad Sharif left Meraj Din, who fell prone. Then Muhammad Zubair alias Jhara and Muhammad Sharif caused successive blows on his waist, upper part of right arm, right thigh and left hand. Upon raising of Lalkara by the witnesses, the accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Blood was oozing from the injuries of Meraj Din, when the complainant took him to the hospital through a rickshaw for the purpose of medical aid, but before reaching the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries". After completion of investigation the petitioner was sent up for trial alongwith co-accused namely Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Shafi and on conclusion of trial the petitioners were found guilty and convicted as per details as mentioned above. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners which was rejected by means of judgment impugned, hence this petition.
3. It is mainly contended by Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that the evidence which has come on record has not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and the plea of grave and sudden provocation as pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner was never taken into consideration and ignored without any rhyme and reason. It is next argued that the defence evidence as led by the petitioners was never kept in juxtaposition. It is urged emphatically that recovery of crime weapon was made with an inordinate delay which makes it abundant clear that it was a false and planted recovery and thus the report of Chemical Examiner/Serologist should have been discarded. The appeal up to the extent of Muhammad Sharif has not been pressed.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of record of the case with the eminent assistance of Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court. The judgment of learned trial Court and judgment impugned were examined with care and caution. A. Careful scrutiny of the entire evidence would reveal that the statement of Abbas Ali (P.W.5) cannot be ignored who supported the prosecution evidence and stood firm to the test of cross-examination and nothing beneficial could be extracted rendering any assistance to the petitioner in spite of various searching questions. The statement of Abbas Ali (P.W.5) has been corroborated by Ghulam Nabi (P.W.6) in all respects. He was also subjected to an exhaustive cross-examination but nothing advantageous could be elicited. The ocular version finds full support from the medical evidence tendered by Dr. Syed Raza Mohyuddin (P.W.9). The factum of recovery of blood-stained dagger (P.4) at the instance of petitioner Muhammad Zubair coupled with the reports of Chemical Examiner (Exhs.P.K. And P.L.) and Serologist (Exhs.P.M. And P.N.) further lends full support to eye account. In such view of the matter we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has established its case beyond shadow of doubt and the ocular evidence which is forthright, definite and creditworthy, has rightly been considered and relied upon by the learned trial Court duly occurred by the learned High Court.
5. We have dilated upon the prime plea of Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court agitated on behalf of petitioner that the learned trial and Appellate Courts have failed to consider the plea of grave and sudden provocation. It is worth-mentioning here at this juncture that the plea of grave and sudden provocation was not agitated by the petitioner in an unambiguous manner in this statement got recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein the petitioner professed innocence and stated that he was falsely involved in this case on account of enmity. The petitioner did not utter even a single word regarding the plea of grave and sudden provocation. He declined to get his statement recorded on oath. The denial simpliciter is demonstrative of the fact that the plea of grave and sudden provocation was never pressed into service. It is, however, to be noted that the fateful incident had occurred on 30-8-1997 while the exchange of hot words and abuses between Meraj and Sabir on the one hand and Muhammad Sharif on the other had taken place six months prior to the occurrence and a compromise was executed between the parties by the Punchayat. The plea of grave and sudden provocation appears to be an afterthought and cannot be agitated because "the law does not take into account abnormal creature reacting abnormally in given situations. The law contemplates the acting of normal beings in given situations and the protection that is offered by the ' Exception is the protection for normal beings reacting normally in a given set of circumstances. A Court has to consider whether a reasonable person placed in the same position as the accused was, would have reacted under the provocation in the manner in which the accused did". (Dhanno Khan 1957 Cr.LJ 498). The record is indicative of the fact that no justification whatsoever was available to kill a helpless poor woman on the ground of sudden and grave provocation as nothing has come on record showing that due to heat of passion the alleged murder was committed.
Before the plea of grave and sudden provocation is pressed into service it must be shown distinctly not only that act was done under the influence of some feeling which took away from the person doing it all control over his actions, but that feeling had an adequate cause which is lacking badly in this case". (Manawar Ali v. The State 2001 SCM R 614).
6. The case of petitioner has been examined in the light of touchstone of criterion as mentioned hereinabove and we are of the considered opinion that it was a premeditated murder and moreso the burden was on the petitioner to prove the plea of grave and sudden provocation who failed to discharge this burden and could not show that there was the slightest possibility of his version being true. No circumstances whatsoever could be referred on the basis whereof plea of grave and sudden provocation could be taken. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in cases Khalid Javed v. Ansar Khan (1995 SCM R 1846). We are mindful of the fact that there is some delay in recovery of dagger and its dispatch to Chemical Examiner/Serologist but it hardly matters and its evidentiary value mere on the basis of delay cannot be diminished as no or malice was attributed to Investigating Officer and in absence whereof the question of false plantation of dagger does not arise. If any authority is needed reference can be made to case titled Anwarul Hassan v. State (1980 SCM R 649) and Muhammad Iqbal v. Muhammad Tahir (PLD 1985 SC 361). It would not be out of place to mention here that maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is not applicable in prevalent system of criminal administration of justice and moreso there is no rule having universal application that where some accused persons have not been found guilty the other accused would, ipso facto,stand acquitted because the Court has to sift the grain from chaff. If any authority is needed reference can be made to cases titled Riaz Hussain v. The State (2001 SCM R 177) and Samano v. State (1973 SCM R 162). The acquittal of Muhammad Shaft would not affect the overwhelming incriminating material produced by the prosecution against petitioner to substantiate the accusation. The judgment impugned being free from any illegality or infirmity hardly calls for any interference.
' The petition being meritless is dismissed.