MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus State

ORDER

MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.--- The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment whereby the High Court while maintaining his conviction and death sentence in a murder case dismissed his appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case, as given in para-4 of the impugned judgment, are as follows:--

"4. Facts in brief, as narrated in the application (Exh.PD) made by Muhammad Akhtar Javed (P.W.4) on the basis of which F.I.R. (Exh-PD/1) was recorded, are that Nasir Ahmad (P.W.10) was appointed as Block Officer of Taj Garh Block; in the night between 14/15-3-2008 at about 11-20 p.m. he received a spy information that some persons were stealing trees at Mehran Distry; on this information he along with Tahir Khursheed (deceased) son of Khursheed Ahmad resident of Chak No. 65/NP, Forest Guard, Khalid Mehmood (given-up), Forest Guard, Zahid Hussain (Given-up) and Khalil Ahmed (P.W.5) on private car went for checking Mehran Distry; when they reached between Burjee Nos. 5 to 27 at about 11-45 p.m. they saw in the headlights of the car Muhammad Aslam, Akram, Arshad sons of Naseer Ahmad and Naseer Ahmad son of Peeran Khan caste Magsi Blouch, cutting government trees with a saw; they raised 'Lalkara' to apprehend them on which Muhammad Aslam accused made straight firing on them with a pistol .12-bore which was in his hand; the said fire made by Muhammad Aslam accused hit Muhammad Tahir Khursheed on his belly, who fell down on the ground after receiving the injury whereas the accused made good their escape raising Lalkaras and making firing; Muhammad Tahir Khursheed was brought to Emergency Ward Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Rahimyar Khan for treatment on a car; the accused committed the theft with regard to trees belonging to Government, injured Muhammad Tahir Khursheed and interfered in the official working; Muhammad Tahir Khursheed was in emergency ward Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Rahimyar Khan in a precarious condition; Nasir Ali ASI (P.W.10) sent the application to police station for registration of the case through Muhammad Ramzan 198/C where Muhammad Ashraf ASI/DO P.W.12 recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.PD/I."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to highlighting other inconsequential infirmities in the prosecution case, has contended that it is a night occurrence and it was not possible for the eye-witnesses to see the petitioner in the headlights of the car and the culprits have not been identified. In the alternative he has also prayed for reduction of death sentence to that of life imprisonment in the circumstances of the case as according to him it was not a premeditated murder as the occurrence has taken place at the spur of the moment. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General while opposing the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has produced credible evidence to prove the case against the petitioner and he was rightly convicted and sentenced by the Courts below.

4. The deceased who was a young official of the Forest Department and during the course of performing his duties in order to protect and safeguard the Government's property i.e., the trees from cutting and stealing the same, was done to death. The ocular account given by Muhammad Akhtar Javed, P.W.4 and Khalil Ahmed, P.W.5, who are independent witnesses having no animosity or ill-will with the petitioner and also not related to the deceased to falsely implicate the petitioner. The ocular account has been supported by other circumstantial evidence like the recovery of empty of .12 bore from the spot and the recovery of .12 bore pistol from the petitioner's house at his instance, with a positive report of the Forensic Science Laboratory.

5. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no force regarding the identification of the petitioner as the headlights of a car are sufficient for the identification of a person and particularly when he is known to the witnesses. The aforesaid circumstances are sufficient to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding lesser sentence is also not tenable as the petitioner while committing an offence and finding himself to have been detected resorted to firing at the deceased and which calls for no leniency even in the matter of sentence. The courts below have arrived at a right conclusion by holding the petitioner guilty and convicting and sentencing him accordingly.

6. Consequently, we see no force in this petition. Therefore, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.

N.H.Q./M-5/SC Leave to appeal refused.