UMAR HAYAT Versus STATE

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH J. ‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 28‑4‑1982 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's criminal appeal against conviction under section 302. P. P. C and sentence of life imprisonment together with fine, was dismissed.

2. Mst. Zohra Bibi P. W.. (the mother of Liaquat Ali deceased) the complainant, had given one room of her house to Umar Hayat petitioner, who is her brother's son. Her request to him for vacating the room was turned down. On the same day in the evening Liaquat Ali deceased remonstrated with the petitioner as to why he had insulted his mother. The deceased also asked the petitioner to vacate the room. On this the petitioner rushed to his house, brought a Chhuri and attacked the deceased with a Lalkara. He inflicted repeated blows on the deceased who fell down. The occurrence was witnessed by Mst. Zohra the aunt (Phuphi) of the petitioner and Ham Din. The deceased was removed to the hospital in injured condition. But the injuries subsequently proved fatal. In the hospital the doctor was asked whether Liaquat Ali was fit to make a statement and the answer was in the negative. During the investigation the police recovered the blood‑stained Chhuri at the instance of the petitioner from his house. The blood was found to be of human origin. At the trial the petitioner's plea was of denial and false implication. But relying on the ocular testimony, the recovery and the motive, the petitioner was found guilty of murder and convicted and sentenced accordingly by the trial Court. His appeal was dismissed with the following observations on the question of credibility of the eye‑witnesses:

3. "As transpired from the above resume of the facts, in the instant case the ocular account of the prosecution version has been proved at the trial through the testimonies of P. W.12 Mst. Zohra and P.W.13 Ilam Din. Mst. Zohra, no doubt is mother of the deceased but the appellant also at the same time happened to be her brother's son. The occurrence had taken place partly in front of her house. She is, therefore, a natural witness of the occurrence. Her testimony cannot be brushed aside merely for the reason that she is mother of the deceased. The other eye‑witness namely Ilam Din (P.W.13) is not related, in any manner, to the deceased or the complainant. There is nothing on record to suggest that he is, in any manner, inimical towards (him) therefore, (he is) an independent and disinterested eye‑witness. He has fully supported the testimony of Mst. Zohra Bibi, the other eye‑witness. According to the statements of both these eye‑witnesses the appellant caused injuries with Chhuri to the deceased in the manner stated in the F.I.R. Exh. P.A. The deceased ultimately died of these injuries on the following day."

4. It is stated in the impugned judgment that the petitioner also absconded after the occurrence. But it is not necessary to examine this aspect in any detail as after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we have not been able to doubt the credibility of the eye‑witnesses and the recovery witnesses.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the number of injuries and other circumstances are indicative of the fact that there were more than one assailants while the eye‑witnesses name only one; that there was delay in the F.I.R.; that it was an unwitnessed occurrence; that both the eye‑witnesses are in reality not the residents of the locality; that there are similar other infirmities and improbabilities in the case; and lastly, that the motive is false and the petitioner has been falsely implicated with a view to grab his property.

6. The points urged by the learned counsel are not such so as to make it necessary for this Court to re‑appraise the evidence. In the circumstances of this case, no principle of appreciation of evidence has been violated. The testimony of Mst. Zohra who is the aunt of the petitioner inspires confidence. There was no reason for her to substitute the petitioner for any other person, if he was innocent. Ilam Din P.W. had no motive to falsely‑ implicate the petitioner. The recovery of the Chhuri also stands established. There was reliable evidence against the petitioner to justify the conviction and sentence for murder.

7. There is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed.

8. M.I./U‑2/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.