HAYAT BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN

ORDER

1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED J. ‑These three petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of under one order,

2. Petition No. 308 of 1975 is by Alam Khan and Muhammad Khan, while Petition No. 309 of 1975 is by BehramKhan. All these three petitioners have been convicted. under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and while Alam Khan has beep sentenced to death thereunder, the other two petitioners,' namely, Muhammad Khan and Behram Khan have been sentenced to imprisonment for life each. Fines were also imposed on all the three petitioners.

3. Petition No. 298 of 1975 is by complainant Mst. Hayat Bibi, wife of Muhammad Khan deceased and she has been aggrieved by an order of the High Court commuting the sentences of death imposed by the trial Court upon Muhammad Khan and Behram Khan to terms of imprisonment for life.

4. The incident took place on the 15th of December 1172 at 10 a.m. at a bus‑stand, and a first information report was promptly lodged at the police station at 10‑I5 by Mir. Hayat Bibi (P.W. 2), wife of Muhammad Khan deceased. The incident was witnessed by P. W. Mst. Hayat Bibi and Mst. Khando (P. W. 3), a sister-in‑law of the deceased.

5. It appears from the peculiar conditions prevailing in Mianwali district that for fear of being regarded as enemies of the accused, persons are very reluctant to appear as witnesses in a case of the present kind. The trial Court as well as the High Court were, therefore of the view that it was very difficult and impossible to secure independent and disinterested witnesses in a murder case in ,this district. P. W. Mst. Khando appear to be an old woman of 71 years of age. No reason has been suggested to her as why she should falsely implicate the assailants of the deceased. The witness admitted that she suffered from weak eye‑sight, but said the she could identify a person from a distance of 8/9 paces. She saw the assailants from a very close quarter and it was, therefore, not difficult for her to identify the assailants who we were known to her.

6. According to the prosecution case all the three accused had fired with their rifles at the deceased. The medical evidence showed a large number of fire‑arm wounds including five entry wounds, vie two on the chest; one on the vertebral column; one on the right arm; and one on the back of the left buttock. It is, thus, evident that the medical evidence fully support the ocular evidence in regard to the manner of the occurrence as well as the number of assailants involved in it.

7. The ocular evidence receives further support from the fact that although the incident took place on the 11th of December, 1972, the accused remained in abscondence until the, 11th of January, 1973, whom they were arrested.

8. Both the Courts have relied up in the ocular evidence as well as the supporting circumstances, and we se no reason to interfere with their conclusions.

9. As regards Petition‑ No. 298 pf 1975, the learned Judges of the High Court were of the view that it was really Alam Khan s who had the motive to kill the deceased and that Alam Khan's two sons Muhammad Khan and Behram Khan acted under the influence of their father Alam Khan. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that since the learned Judges of the High Court have exercised their discretion which cannot be said to have been done absolutely, on unreasonable grounds, we should not interfere with the sentences of imprisonment for life imposed on Behram Khan and Muhammad Khan.

10. We, accordingly, dismiss all the three petitions.

11. Petitions dismissed.