' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment, dated 28-3- 2002, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No,8I9 of 1996.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that F.I.R. bearingNo,154/1993 was lodged by Muhammad Yaqoob/complainant (P.W.2) with Police Station Gujranwala on 6-3-1993 alleging therein that his realbrother Muhammad Younas came to Pakistan about 1-1/4 years ago, after putting up in England alongwith his family members of the last 18/19 years. Thereafter, the deceased set up a ready-made garments factory in the area of Mauza Attawa near Lahore Hazara Hotel at the G.T.
Road. He used to go to the factory to watch the workers. On the day of occurrence, the complainant had gone to the factory to see him. At about 11-30 a.m. Muhammad Younas (deceased) riding on his Motorcycle bearing No,6234/GAG (Honda) alongwith the complainant and when, they reached the G.T. Road, they came across Muhammad Suleman and Masood Ahmad, who were coining to see Muhammad Younas. In the meantime, the petitioner-accused suddenly appeared from alongside a tree and shot two fires with his pistol at Muhammad Younas.
The fires hit him on the chest and abdomen and staggered down from the motorcycle and the complainant swiftly moved aside from the pillion seat. The accused picked up the motorcycle and fled towards Eminabad side firing in the air. The complainant, Masood Ahmad (P.W.3) and Suleman carried the victim in the Pick-up to the hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries at the doorway of hospital. The reason of the crime was that one Mst. Bilqees Bibi widow of Muhammad Hussain, an employee in the factory of Muhammad Younas, and the accused had illicit relations with her.
Muhammad Younas forbade the accused to see her. Once the complainant had also restrained him. The accused and deceased had twice quarrelled over it. On this ground the accused had done Muhammad Younas to death. Thereafter, the petitioner was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to death vide judgment dated 22-9-1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. Thereafter, he filed appeal before the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and death sentence has been confirmed. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Tanvir Ahmad, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the evidence of Muhammad Yaqoob (P.W.2) and Masood Ahmad (P.W.3) is not reliable because they are closely related to the deceased and their evidence is doubtful inasmuch as they had no business to be present on the spot and the motive behind the occurrence was false; that the statement of Mst. Balqees Bibi also shows that the relatives of her husband were responsible for the murder of the deceased and the conviction of the petitioner has been made by misreading the evidence on record; and that the recoveries were also fabricated and false and as such cannot be relied upon and the petitioner's version in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Is not nearer to the truth and has wrongly been discarded by the Courts below, therefore, leave to appeal may very graciously be granted and set aside the impugned judgment, dated 28-3-2002. Conversely, Syed Muhammad Iftikhar Shah, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the learned High Court rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
4. We have heard the learned, counsel for both the parties at length and carefully examined the available record. There is no misreading and non-reading of the material available and the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court. It would be advantageous to refer here the relevant portion of the impugned judgment which runs as under:-- "(15) We have also examined statement of Masood Ahmad, (P.W.3) from all angles. He has furnished handsome explanation for being available at the place of occurrence. According to him, he and Muhammad Suleman had been called by the deceased. There is nothing to doubt presence of both the witnesses at the time of occurrence. They have described the event with much exactitude. This could be possible only when they had perceived everything through their senses. They have assigned fatal shots to the appellant. They were subjected to a very lengthy cross-examination, but defence failed to break their testimony, which remained unshaken.
(16) The complainant is real brother of the deceased. He is not expected to substitute an innocent person for the real offender. He could never tolerate that the actual killer of his brother should escape punishment.
(17) Motive part of the occurrence has been rightly believed by the trial Court. Recovery of motorcycle of the deceased from possession of the appellant is of great significance. The appellant immediately picked up motorcycle of the deceased from the spot,, when he fell on the ground after sustaining injuries and decamped from the spot by means of that motorcycle. How the appellant came to have that motorcycle has not been effectively explained by the appellant.
Recovery of motorcycle is by all means sufficient to link the appellant with the commission of crime in question. Medical evidence is in consonance with the ocular account in all respects.
(18) The crime empties were found wedded with the pistol (P.2) recovered from the appellant. The mode of recovery of empties from house of the appellant makes this piece of evidence somewhat doubtful. It was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court."
5. We are of the firm opinion that the impugned judgment is in consonance with the law, which is not open to exception.
6. For the foregoing facts, circumstances and reasons, this petitionis without merit and substance which is hereby dismissed and leave declined.