HAFIZUR RAHMAN Versus STATE
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- The petitioner was awarded death sentence by the learned trial Court and a fine of Rs.5,000 by judgment dated 11-3-1981. On appeal, the learned High Court Judges altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life vide the impugned judgment dated 9-2-1985. By this petition leave is now sought by the petitioner to appeal against the impugned judgment.
2. Prosecution case briefly stated is that Zafar Ali complainant/ P.W.6 was coming from his Dhok to the Abadi of Ching when he reached near the 'Abadi' he saw Sultan Khan deceased and Iftikhar P.W. coming from the opposite direction heading towards the Dhok when they reached near the banna of the field, the petitioner, his brother Zafar Iqbal (acquitted co-accused) both armed with guns, alongwith Shah Muhammad (co-accused acquitted under section 265-K Cr.P.C.) empty handed emerged from behind the said banna; they raised lalkara and opened attack on the deceased Sultan Khan, Hafizur Rahman fired a shot which hit the deceased as a result of which he fell down and died. The occurrence was witnessed, according to complainant Zafar lqbal, by him and Iftikhar P.W.7. The two other witnesses named in the report namely Allah Bakhsh son of Misri Khan and Allah Bakhsh son of Allah Yar were not produced. Motive for the murder is stated to be that Mst.Amir Begum sister of Hafizur Rahman petitioner was married to Fateh Khan son of Sultan Khan deceased but she was allegedly murdered by her husband and Sultan Khan deceased. During the trial the parties reached a compromise resulting in the acquittal of the accused in that case. Mst. Bhag Bhari was then married to Hafizur Rahman petitioner in exchange for the marriage of Mst.Amir Begum. Later on, however, Sultan Khan deceased demanded the divorce of Mst. Bhag Bhari but the petitioner refused to divorce her, and hence, the relations of the parties became strained.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us that the learned Courts below have departed from the settled principles of criminal justice inasmuch as the evidence of the interested witnesses is not to be accepted without independent corroboration; that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the defence version and instead placed reliance on the tainted evidence of the ocular witnesses related closely to the deceased.
We have gone through the impugned judgment and find that the petitioner himself admitted, in his statement recorded by the learned trial Court under section 342, Cr.P.C. that he was returning from the Dhok of his maternal grand-parents at about digervela to Chir to his house, when he saw Sultan Khan deceased going towards his Dhok; the deceased accosted him and asked him to divorce his daughter but he refused to do so; the deceased insisted upon obtain in divorce for his daughter and eventually flared up and took out a pistol and fired at him but missed; he then, in self-defence, fired with his gun which hit the deceased. This defence version has not been believed by the Courts below and we are of the view that it has been rightly rejected. The petitioner has not been able to show that after his shot hit the deceased, what happened to the pistol which the deceased was carrying. The petitioner should have taken it into possession and then handed over to the police and should have made a straight-forward statement. Thus we find no merit in this petition which is, consequently, dismissed.
However, benefits of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be extended to the petitioner.
S.Q./H-27/S Petition dismissed.