MUHAMMAD BASHIR Alias SHIKRA vs The STATE

ORDER

1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioner who was employed as a line man in the Electricity Department, Sahiwal and was posted at Chak No. 116/12. L, was tried on a charge under section 302 for the murder of Mst. Sakina, were of Sultan, which was alleged to have been committed at maghrib-wela on the 11th June 1967, in Chak No. 116/12. L, Police Station Kassowal, District Sahiwal.

2. The learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal convicted and sentenced him to death and to a fine of Rs. 200 or in default three months' rigorous imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of the West Pakistan High Court, Lahore, in Murder Reference No. 243 of 1968 (Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 1968), by judgment dated the 8th October 1969.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, who was living in the baithak of P. W. Sultan, about a month and a half before the alleged murder, sent a message through Mst. Rani P. W. 11 to the deceased that she should develop a liaison with him. The deceased did not agree and rebuked Mst. Rani. Some 4 or 5 days before the occurrence, he again sent a massage through Mst. Rani but the deceased refused to have any connection with him. It is alleged that thereupon the petitioner threatened the deceased through Mst. Rani that if she would not agree to develop illicit connection with him he would kill her. It is alleged that on the day of occurrence, the deceased was going in the lane when the petitioner fired at her with a pistol. The deceased was hit and ran for safety but the petitioner pursued her and fired four more shots hitting her in the back. The deceased fell down at the corner of the lane in front of the shop of Sajjad Hussain and died. The incident was witnessed by Asfandyar P. W. 9, Mehdi Klan P. W. 12, Muhammad Yusuf P. W. 13, Muhammad Din P. W. 14 and Sultan complainant, who were sitting in front of the shop of Sajjad Hussain. They heard a fire shot and saw Mst. Sakina running in the lane from west to east who was pursued by the petitioner. They also saw the petitioner armed with a pistol. The statement of the witnesses is that all the shots were fired at Mst. Sakina from a distance of 3 to 6 karams. Both the learned trial Judge and-the High Court have relied on the evidence of these witnesses and accepted the prosecution version.

4. The petitioner's case is that he had been carrying on love affairs with Mst. Sakina, but P. W. Sultan, who found them together on the night of the occurrence, challenged them. He managed to escape while Mst. Sakina was shot dead by her husband.

5. Mr. A. R. Jeremy, learned counsel for the petitioner' has contended that Sultan was murdered by one Ali Tarrar during the pendency of a murder case and this Ali Tarrar was the cousin of Mst.

6. Sakina. According to the learned counsel it was Sultan deceased who killed Mst. Sakina. This contention has no force. There is nothing to show that the deceased Sultan was killed by Ali Tarrar on account of the murder of Mst. Sakina. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the incident, in this case, took place later in the night. He referred to the statement of Sultan deceased in which he admitted that his First Information Report was not recorded at the Police Station ,and he was directed to contract the Sub-Inspector at Makoani Bungalow which is at a distance of 10 miles and his statement was recorded there. This contention was rightly rejected by the High Court on the ground that the prosecution case should not suffer for the irregularity on the part of the head constable. The learned counsel, however, admitted that P. W. 9 Asfandyar and Muhammad Din P. W. 14 are not related to the complainant party. These witnesses had no enmity with the petitioner and, therefore, their evidence was rightly relied upon by the learned Courts below. The mere fact that P. W. 12 Mehdi Khan and A P. W. 13 Muhammad Yusuf are related to the complainant party is no ground to reject their evidence.

7. One important circumstance against the petitioner is that he absconded after the murder and was arrested from Karachi on the 12th December 1967.

8. It was further contended that the medical evidence shows that there was mark of charring on the place where .The bullet hit the deceased and this point has not been considered by the High Court.

9. The contention of the learned counsel has no force because the shot was fired at the deceased from .a very close distance. Although the pistol has not been recovered but it must be a country- made fire arm and by using it the distance must have-become very close.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the question involved in this case is about the appreciation of the-evidence produced by the prosecution. We are satisfied that the Courts below have appraised the evidence properly. There is no ground to interfere by this Court. The petition is dismissed.