MUHAMMAD MATEH Versus STATE

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J .‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 6‑6‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore; whereby petitioners' Criminal Appeal against conviction and sentences for the offence of murder, was dismissed.

2. The prosecution case is that on the day of occurrence at the eventful time, Ghulam Muhammad (P.W.9), Falak Sher deceased and 51st. Daulat Khatoon widow of the deceased left for their 'Behak. When they reached near the 'Behak', the three petitioners/ accused armed with guns emerged from nearby sugarcane fields raising Lalkara that Falak Sher be taught a lesson for pursuing his son's case and attacked him. Khan Muhammad son of Muhammad Sadiq (petitioner) fired shot hitting the left leg of Falak Sher. Khan Muhammad son of Sher (petitioner) fired shot on the face of Falak Sher who fell. to the ground. Muhammad Mateh (petitioner) fired at the deceased from a close range hitting below his left flank. The petitioners then allegedly went away firing indiscriminately. Falak Sher died at the spot.

3. The motive for the attack was that about six months before the occurrence Ata Muhammad, brother of Mateh (petitioner) was murdered by Asif Hayat son of Falak Sher deceased (and others). The latter (deceased in the present case) was pursuing the case of his son Asif Hayat; who had been released on bail by the High Court.

4. At the trial Ahmad Hayat a paternal‑nephew and son‑in‑law of the deceased who is also the first informant and Ghulam his other nephew furnished the ocular account. Mst. Daulat Khatoon, the widow of the deceased another eye‑witness, however, was not examined.

5. Although three guns were recovered from they petitioners‑‑one each; the recoveries were not used against them. There were no crime empties at the spot and the guns were licensed.

6. The trial Court convicted all the three petitioners under section 302/34, P,P_C. and awarded the sentence of death to Mateh petitioner and life imprisonment to each of the remaining two petitioners; besides, fine to all. The High Court while dismissing their appeals also affirmed the sentences.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and they Caveator, we consider it a fit case to re‑examine the evidence so as to see whether well‑recognised principles have been observed in the appreciation of evidence. In particular, whether rule of corroboration of inimical evidence was to be observed and in fact was observed or not; besides the other points raised. Accordingly leave to appeal is granted.

8. M.I. /M‑520/S Leave granted.