MUHAMMAD SULTAN Versus STATE

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J.- -This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Sultan petitioner who was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to death plus fine by the trial Court. On appeal the Lahore High Court, Lahore maintained the conviction as 'well as sentence. The deceased in this case is Mohammad Khan.

2. The occurrence took place at about 7 p.m. on 25th May, 198' on the bank of link channel canal within the area of Police Station Gunjial, District Sargodha. From the spot was picked up an empty cartridge. The petitioner was arrested on 28th May, 1982 and from him was recovered .12 bore gun. The crime empty matched with the said gun. There are two eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely Mehar Khan real brother of the deceased and Mohammad Nawaz nephew of the deceased. The motive is that three years before the present occurrence the deceased had promised to give the hand of his daughter Mst. Sattan to the petitioner but since the petitioner was a bad character the father of the girl namely the deceased changed his mind and 2/3 months before the present occurrence engaged her to one Mohammad Hayat. This led to the murder of the deceased. The prosecution story is that on the fateful day the deceased alongwith the eye-witnesses was on his way to his Dera for bringing empty gunny bags. When they arrived at the bank of link channel canal the petitioner appeared there armed with a gun and fired a shot at the deceased in order to teach him a lesson for not giving the hand of his daughter to the petitioner. The shot hit at his chest and abdomen. The deceased died on the spot and the eye-witnesses did not dare to interfere.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that the occurrence did not take place in the evening, but had in fact taken place later on during the night and that it was an un-witnessed occurrence. His reasoning was that according to the complainant they had left after having had their meals at sunset time but during the post-mortem examination the stomach contents indicated that meals may have been taken before sunset time as there was semi digested food found in the stomach. It was next argued that according to the medical evidence fire-arm injuries received by the deceased could have been caused to him from a very close range but according to the eye-witnesses the shot had been fired at him from a distance of more than ten feet. So, according to him the ocular testimony was in conflict with the medical evidence. It was then submitted that the motive set up by the prosecution was not proved.

4. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner but find them without any force. The medical evidence is not in conflict with the ocular testimony and similarly the time of occurrence appears to be the one which has been given in the F.I.R. as the matter was reported to the police on the same day by 9 a. m. when the police station was at a distance of four miles from the spot. After hearing learned counsel and going through the record in our opinion this is not a fit case for the grant of leave.

5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

6. M.I./M-240/S Petition dismissed.