JAVED Versus STATE

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J.- -In this petition for leave to appeal the petitioner challenges his conviction as well as sentence awarded to him by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore.

2. The petitioner alongwith two others was tried on a charge under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Islamabad who convicted the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C and sentenced him to death plus fine whereas the remaining two co-accused were convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to a period of imprisonment which they had already undergone. On a joint appeal by the three of them the conviction of the petitioner was maintained but his sentence was altered from death to that of imprisonment for life. So far as the co-accused were concerned the appeal was dismissed.

3. The deceased in this case is Munawar Khan. The occurrence took place at 5-30 p.m. on 17th May, 1979 in a field at some distance from Police Station Golarah, District Rawalpindi. The F.I.R. was lodged by Khuda Bakhsh father of the deceased after an hour on the same day. The petitioner was arrested on 20th May, 1979 and crime empty picked up from the spot matched with carbine recovered from him. There are three eye-witnesses who support the prosecution version. The motive for the crime is that a year before the present occurrence there was a marriage ceremony being held of daughter of Ghulam Mohammad, a cousin of Khuda Bakhsh complainant. The deceased carrying Shamyanas etc. on a truck passed through the land of the petitioner whereupon hot words were used between the deceased and the petitioner and they also grappled with each other, but they were separated. On the day of occurrence the truck of the petitioner was passing through the land of the deceased who took exception to it and compelled the petitioner to drive back his truck. This annoyed him and .his co-accused whereupon they attacked the deceased. The part ascribed to the petitioner is that he fired through his carbine and the shot hit the deceased on his right side of the chest. The other co-accused caused injuries to the deceased with their respective weapons while he had fallen down. The occurrence was witnessed by the eye-witnesses whereafter the petitioner and his companions ran away.

4. According to the medical evidence apart from the fire-arm injury which proved fatal and which is attributed to the petitioner, the deceased had five injuries in the form of lacerated wounds or contusions. The appellate Court while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. altered the sentence from death to life imprisonment for the reason that the origin of the occurrence remained shrouded in mystery and that the possibility could not be ruled out that the deceased might have uttered something or hot words had been exchanged which might have provoked the petitioner, as previously when the deceased had taken the truck through the land of the petitioner a year before the present occurrence an altercation had taken place.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks reappraisal of evidence with a view to show that it was a sudden fight. But on perusal off the record we did not find that it is a fit case for the grant of leave as no point of law has been raised in this case before us. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

6. M.I. /J-15/S Petition dismissed.