FARZAND ALI Versus STATE

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. -- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 22-9-1982 of the Lahore High Court; whereby while partly allowing the appeal (of some of the convicts) in a murder case, that of Farzand Ali petitioner was dismissed and the sentence of life imprisonment as also fine awarded against him separately under sections 302 and 449, P.P.C have been affirmed

2. On account of a trivial dispute between Mukhtar acquitted co-accused of Farzand petitioner and Mubarak P.W. a cousin of Shabbir deceased on account of insistence of the accused party to tether their cattle in a School building during summer vacations, which was objected to by Mubarak, a scuffle took place between Mukhtar and Mubarak at about 3/4 p.m. on the day of occurrence. As a sequel to this scuffle in which it appears Mukhtar accused had suffered some injuries, it was the prosecution case, a couple of hours later, the petitioner armed with a Burchhi together with his co-accused who were also armed attacked Mubarak P.W. But when Shabbir wanted to save him and for that purpose tried to intervene, he was done to death. The petitioner was alleged to have injured the deceased with his Burchhi which was later on recovered from him and was found to have been stained with human blood.

3. Two learned Courts below have found Farzand Ali guilty and he has according been sentenced, as noted above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the acquittal of the co-accused of Farzand Ali on the basis of the same eye-witness account would also re-act on the prosecution case in so far as the culpability of Farzand Ali petitioner is concerned; that the F.I.R. was delayed and there was no motive; that the recovery of Burchhi from the petitioner is doubtful; and, finally that it was sent to the Chemical Examiner after some delay.

5. The acquittal of the co-accused of the petitioner was on extension of benefit of doubt. It cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner. In any case, there is evidence of recovery of crime weapon which has been used as corroboration against him. The other arguments of the learned counsel relate to appraisal of evidence which not being against any principle or law, does not justify interference by this Court.

6. This petition accordingly has no force and, is dismissed.

7. M.I./F-21/S Petition dismissed.