' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, dated 13-8-2001, passed in Criminal Appeal No,(S)50 of 2000.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 17-3-1996 at 7-25 p.m. Mohib Ali complainant (P.W.1) lodged F.I.R. (Exh.P.1-A) with Police Station Usta Muhammad alleging therein that 3/4 years back his brother Hidayat Ali had quarrelled with petitioner Mulla Riaz Ahmad, whereupon a case was registered against his brother, and after trial he was acquitted. The said matter was patched up betwixt the parties, on the intervention of Syed Abdul Qadir Shah Jilani. It was further alleged that on the day of incident, he alongwith his brother Manzoor Ahmad, Sabz Ali and Munawar Ali had gone to attend the 'Khairat" of their deceased cousin Sanzer in Goth Muhammad Usman, Chak No,50 where many people had gathered. At about 5-50 p.m. Suddenly his cousin Mulla Riaz Ahmed armed with T.T. Pistol, Dada armed with shotgun and Fazal Muhammad armed with hatchet, came there firing in the air. Manzoor Ahmed caught hold of Dada and overpowered him. In the meanwhile, Fazal Muhammad hit him with hatchet from the back and during this period Mulla Riaz Ahmad fired with pistol, which hit Manzoor Ahmad on the left side of his stomach and Dada after loading shotgun also fired, which hit Mst. Janat Khatoon wife of Abdullah, who had also come to attend the "Khairat". After firing the accused ran away from the place of occurrence, whereas Manzoor Ahmad and Mst. Janat Khatoon succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. After registration of the case, Jamil Asghar, S.H.O. Reached the place of occurrence. He prepared site plan (Exh.P/7-A), examined the dead bodies of the deceased persons and prepared inquest reports of deceased Manzoor Ahmad and Mst. Janat Khatoon (Exhs.P.7-B and 7-C) respectively. He secured the blood-stained earth from underneath the dead bodies of the deceased. He also prepared site inspection report (Exh.P/6-A) and recovered 4 empty cartridges of shotgun which he took into possession vide memo. (Exh.P/6-D) and one empty cartridge of T.T. Pistol vide Memo.
(Exh.P/6.E). He recorded statements of witnesses and during course of investigation he was transferred on 16-8-1996, therefore, he handed over the investigation papers to Shahbaz Khan, S.H.O. On 29-11-1997 the petitioner was arrested. During investigation on his pointation a pistol was also recovered, which was sent to the Ballistic Expert for opinion, who submitted his report (Exh.P/7- G).
4. After completion of investigation, challan was submitted before the trial Court. Charge was framed against the petitioner and absconding accused Fazal Muhammad and Dada. The petitioner refuted the charge. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 8 witnesses.
5. The learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 19-4-2000 convicted the petitioner and absconding accused Fazal Muhammad and Dada under section 302(a), P.P.C. And sentenced them to death.
They were further convicted under section 34, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine of Rs,1,00,000 each, and in case of default in payment of fine to further suffer R.I. For two years.
6. The petitioner assailed his conviction and sentence through appeal. The learned High Court vide judgment, dated 13-8-2001, dismissed the appeal converting the sentence from section 302(a), P.P.C. To that of section, 302(b), P.P.C. Death as Tazir. However, the sentence of fine of Rs,1,00,000 was set aside. Hence, this petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt; that the prosecution evidence is not trustworthy and could not be relied upon; that the Courts below did not consider the case in its proper perspective and petition for leave to appeal may be granted.
8. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and minutely examined the record as well as the evidence produced by the prosecution. The prosecution in this case has relied upon the evidence of Mohib Ali complainant (P.W.1) coupled with the medical evidence. The trial Court has relied upon the circumstantial evidence, recovery of empties from the place of incident, recovery of pistol at the instance of the petitioner and report of Ballistic Expert. The same was also disbelieved by the learned High Court on sound and cogent reasons because the petitioner was arrested after long time. The learned High Court maintained the judgment .Of the learned trial Court considering the ocular evidence to be of unimpeachable character and trustworthy. Medical evidence is also in support of the ocular account. The fact of abscondence of the petitioner was also considered to be a circumstance against him, because after commission of the crime he absconded away and was arrested on 29-11-1997 i.e, after lapse of about 8 months.
The Wardat is in consonance with the prosecution evidence because the police secured blood near the house of Sanzer. It is also borne out from the record that the P. Ws. Are inter se related, but it is an admitted fact that they are also related to the petitioner, as paternal cousins, and earlier the dispute was settled by Syed Abdul Qadir Jillani (Murshad). The petitioner was assigned the role of causing fatal injuries to the deceased. This Court has time and again observed that statement of witness cannot be disbelieved solely on the plea that he is related to the deceased. In this context reference may be made to Sharafat Ali v. The State (1999 SCM R 329) wherein it has been observed as under:-- ' "It was urged before us that they are interested witnesses and being close relatives of the deceased, their testimony cannot be believed. No doubt, they are related, but mere relationship is no basis to discard their evidence. Furthermore, by no stretch of imagination they can be considered to be interested witnesses. An interested witness, as laid down by this Court on a number of occasions and particularly in the case of Niaz v. The State (PLD 1960 SC 38), is a person who has a motive to falsely implicate a person. Considering the testimony of these two eye- witnesses on the touchstone of the aforesaid criteria, we do not fmd their testimony is tainted or they had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant nor any enmity worth the name has been brought on record to show that they were implicating the appellant in this case falsely."
9. The impugned judgment is based on cogent and sound reasons. We do not find misreading or material illegality in the impugned judgment, which is not open to exception.
10. For the facts and reasons stated hereinabove in our considered view, this petition is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.