NAZAR Versus STATE
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J. --This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Nazar, Ashiq and Rab Nawaz petitioners against the judgment dated 2nd June, 1987 of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan.
2. The petitioners were tried on a charge under section 302/34 P.P.C. and the trial Court vide judgment dated 20th December, 1980 convicted all the three of them under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced each of them to death plus fine. On appeal the High Court vide judgment dated 2nd June, 1987 maintained the conviction of Nazar petitioner under section 302/34, P.P.C. and confirmed the sentence of death awarded to him thereunder plus fine. However, while maintaining the conviction of the other two petitioners under sections 302/34, P.P.C. the learned Judges of the Division Bench altered the sentence of Ashiq and Rab Nawaz petitioners from death to that of imprisonment for life plus fine awarded already.
3. The deceased in this case is Jehangir. The occurrence took place at 6 p.m. on 13th August, 1980 within the area of Chak No. L/15/44 of Police Station Mian Channu, District Multan. The motive for crime as relied upon by the Courts below was that Mst. Amiran Bibi a niece of the deceased was stated to have illicit relationship with Nazar petitioner. 4/5 days before the present occurrence the deceased told Nazar petitioner to discontinue his relationship with Mst. Amiran Bibi. On this Nazar petitioner got annoyed and it was in this background that he alongwith his two companions attacked and murdered the deceased. According to the prosecution version the deceased was returning to his house on Eid day after offering Fateha at the graveyard and Fazal P.W. his cousin was following behind him. When they reached near the flour mill the petitioners who were ambushed came out of hiding and attacked the deceased with Chhuries and Kulhari. The occurrence took place at 6 p.m. on 13th August, 1980 and the F.I.R. was promptly lodged by Fazal P.W. cousin of the deceased. The petitioners were arrested on 15th August, 1980. From Nazar petitioner was recovered human blood-stained Chhuri as well as human blood-stained shirt and human blood-stained Chadar. Similarly from Ashiq petitioner was recovered human blood stained Chhuri and human blood-stained Kurta and human blood-stained Chadar. Likewise from Rab Nawaz petitioner was recovered human blood-stained Kulhari and human blood7stained Chadar. These recoveries have been believed. There are three eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely Fazal P.W. cousin of the deceased, Shah Muhammad P.W. not related and Muhammad Nawaz P.W. also not related. The ocular testimony was corroborated by the recovery evidence and has been further supported by the medical evidence and the motive version.' According to the medical evidence the deceased had nine incised wounds on his person. The High Court maintained the conviction under section 302/34, P.P.C. of all the petitioners and also confirmed death sentence awarded to Nazar petitioner for the reason that he had a direct motive to murder the deceased, but the sentence of Ashiq and Rab Nawaz petitioners was altered for the reason that they had joined hands with Nazar petitioner because of their close relationship with him (Ashiq petitioner was his real brother while Rab Nawaz petitioner was his cousin), but had no direct motive against the deceased. Their sentence was also altered for the reason that there was only one individual fatal blow to the deceased which was attributed only to Nazar petitioner whereas the injuries attributed to Ashiq and flab Nawaz petitioners had been collectively adjudged as fatal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue before us that the recoveries should have not been believed in the instant case as they were fake. Similarly according to him the ocular testimony was unreliable. In other words learned counsel only seeks reappraisal of evidence in this case and he has not raised any point of law.
5. After hearing learned counsel in our opinion no ground is made 'out for interference and it is not a fit case for the grant of leave. As a result this petition is dismissed.
6. M.I./N-40/S Petition dismissed.