' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---This petition for leave to appeal, filed from jail by one Rashid Ahmed alias Kuku, has arisen from the murder case of one Ahmed Hussain alias Heera who was done to death on 27-10-1991 at 12-30 p.m. Within the limits of Police Station North Cantt., Lahore. It is directed against the judgment dated 8-5-2001 of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the petitioner's appeal against his conviction under section 302/34, P.P.C.
And sentence of death recorded by the learned trial Court was dismissed and the Murder Reference was answered in the affirmative.
2. The occurrence, as stated earlier, had taken place on 27-10-1991 at about 12-30 p.m. The F.T.R.
Was made at 1-15 p.m. In Mayo Hospital, Lahore by Sarfaraz Mehmood, brother of the deceased. It was alleged therein that on 22-10-19q1 a quarrel had taken place between the deceased on the one hand and the accused Javaid alias Bagga, Rasheed Ahmed alias Kuku and Rashad Saeed alias Rashad Jat on the other as a result, whereof, Javed alias Bagga had sustained injuries and at his behest a case was registered against the deceased at Police Station Shalimar. On the evenful day the complainant alongwith the deceased, Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Sadiq went to the office of Malik Hashmat, Advocate, located within the premises of Lahore Cantt. Courts, in connection with pre-arrest bail of the deceased. Malik Hashmat, Advocate was not available in his office on which they set out for the Canteen to have tea. When at about 12-30 p.m. They reached in front of the door of the Canteen the petitioner, Muhammad Javaid alias Bagga, Tariq Javaid alias Tari and Rashad Saeed alias Rashad Jat appeared on the scene brandishing daggers and raising Lalkaras. The accused Rashad Saeed clasped the deceased from behind and the petitioner Rashid Ahmed alias Kuku, Javaid alias Bagga and Tariq Javaid alias Tari stabbed him. The deceased fell on the ground with his face downwards when given a push by accused Rashad Saeed alias Rashad Jat. While the deceased was lying on the ground the petitioner gave him another dagger blow on the back a his left armpit. The deceased was taken to Mayo Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.
3. The petitioner and his co-accused had taken to their heels after enacting the tragedy. The petitioner was chased and apprehended alongwith the crime dagger by Maroof Hussain, HC (P.W.13), who was present in the premises of the Courts and was attracted to the spot of occurrence by the commotion caused by the incident, and handed over to Ahmed Din, S.-I. Who arrested him and made the crime dagger into a sealed parcel. The crime dagger alongwith the blood-stained earth secured from the spot of occurrence arid blood-stained garments of the deceased was sent to the Chemical Examiner who found the same stained with blood and the Serologist opined that the articles were stained with human blood.
4. The complainant had recorded a supplementary statement as a result of which one Tariq Machhi was also arrayed as an accused. The petitioner alongwith his co-accused was tried for the offence of murder by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who, vide his judgment dated 18-10-1992, acquitted Rashad Saeed alias Rashad Jat, Tariq Javaid alias Tani and Tariq Machhi but placing implicit reliance on the testimony of the complainant, motive, medical evidence, apprehension of the petitioner soon after the occurrence and positive reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist convicted the petitioner and Muhammad Javaid alias Bagga under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced the former to death and the later to imprisonment for life with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The convicts were also directed to pay a sum of Rs,50,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or suffer one year R.I.
In default.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset that the testimony of the complainant was not worthy of credence as he was not a natural witness and his presence, on the spot of occurrence was questionable. He further contended that the ocular evidence was in conflict with the medical evidence and the motive for the crime had no nexus with the petitioner. It was also contended that apprehension of the petitioner soon after the occurrence was also highly doubtful, therefore, the incriminating recovery and the positive reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist could not serve as corroborative evidence. It was lastly contended that the petitioner has been convicted on the basis of the same evidence which was not believed qua his acquitted co-accused.
6. The contentions have not impressed us. The prosecution case against the petitioner stands proved beyond any reasonable doubt in view of these striking features that he was squarely charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. For committing murder of the deceased and the accusation is supported by his apprehension soon after the occurrence by an independent and disinterested person, ocular and medical evidence, recovery of the crime dagger and positive reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist. The ocular evidence was furnished by the complainant and Muhammad Yaqub but the learned trial Court and the High Court have placed reliance on the statement of the complainant only and discarded the statement of Muhammad Yaqoob for valid reasons. The complainant is indeed a natural and probable witness in view of the promptitude with which the F.I.R. Was made. Besides, it is a matter of common knowledge that a person facing prosecution in a criminal case is often accompanied by his relatives and friends, The deceased was admittedly involved in a criminal case and was making efforts to obtain pre-arrest bail, therefore, presence of his brother i.e, the complainant with him at the crucial time does not seem odd. The testimony of the complainant is confidence inspiring and neither suffers from any serious contradiction or discrepancy nor can be undermined by the acquittal of the co-accused of the petitioner as the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' having been discarded its evaluation was made on the touchstone of the doctrine of 'sifting grain' from the chaff'. The ocular evidence is in line with the medical evidence and not incompatible as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner without highlighting any incompatible feature. The relationship of the complainant with the deceased is also immaterial as there is sufficient corroborative evidence on record to augment his testimony.
7. There is no denying the fact that the motive set up in the F.I.R. And at the trial is not available against the petitioner but this circumstance cannot be blown out of proportion in the face of the ocular evidence which is not only reliable but is also fully corroborated by independent evidence emanating from unimpeachable sources.
' For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed and leave declined.