1989SCMR1815 (PLP)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑This petition for ]cave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 14th December, 1985 whereby criminal revision of the petitioner was dismissed and criminal appeal of the respondents was accepted and they were acquitted. Briefly the facts arc that respondents Nos. 1 to 6 were tried for the murder of Shaukat Ali deceased and causing injuries to Safdar Ali PW, but the trial Court vide its judgment convicted only Farzand Ali respondent under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus fine. The other respondents i.e. Nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted. Thereupon Farzand Ali respondent riled a criminal appeal against his conviction and sentence which was accepted by the High Court and he was acquitted, whereas the present petitioner‑complainant filed criminal revision against the acquittal of respondents Nos.2 to 6 which was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner‑complainant before us does not press this petition in respect of respondents Nos.2 to 6 but he submits that his petition is only directed against the acquittal of Farzand Ali respondent. The occurrence took place at Rotiwela on 25 April 1981 in village Roorri within the area of Police Station Haveli. The F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 4‑30 p.m. by the present petitioner i.e. father of Shaukat Ali deceased. There were no recoveries from the spot. The recoveries made from Farzand Ali respondent and Muhammad Aslam co‑accused were firearms, and were of no consequence as no crime empty was picked up from the spot. Recovery made from Muhammad Ashraf, co‑accused was of Sota which was not blood‑stained and therefore it was also of no corroborative value. The eye‑witnesses produced were four namely the petitioner (father of the deceased), Muhammad Ashraf and Safdar Ali injured brother of the deceased and Haji Amanat Ali not related. Safdar Ali PW had five simple injuries on his person. The deceased had firearm wound on the front of abdomen which was attributed to Farzand Ali respondent. The first motive set up by prosecution was that two days prior to the occurrence Farzand Ali respondent and Muhammad Aslam co‑accused had the turn to take water but due to a breach it flowed into the land of the present petitioner. They are stated to have complained that the deceased had diverted the water. The petitioner tried to assure them that his son had no hand in the breach or diversion of the water but they were not satisfied. The second motive advanced was that one Gaman maternal‑grandfather of the wife of Farzand Ali respondent had five daughters who inherited his entire land. Suleman father‑in‑law of Farzand Ali respondent managed to get the land of the four daughters, but there was some land out of the same that had been devolved upon the wife of the petitioner who had transferred it in the name of the deceased (her son). Farzand Ali respondent was annoyed because he wanted this land also to be given to his father‑in‑law namely Suleman. The prosecution case is that on the fateful day the petitioner, the deceased and the other eye‑witnesses rushed to the spot on the alarm that some members of the accused party had caught hold of Sardar Ali PW and were beating him. Suddenly Farzand Ali respondent armed with a gun and Muhammad Aslam co‑accused armed with a rifle emerged and fired at the deceased. The shot of Farzand Ali repondent hit the deceased and he fell down on the ground. He subsequently died in the hospital. The High Court acquitted Farzand Ali respondent mainly for the reason that on the same uncorroborated ocular testimony five co‑accused had already been acquitted by the trial Court. The recovery evidence was not reliable in the instant case and the prosecution's case was based entirely on uncorroborated testimony of interested eye‑witnesses. Even the motives were unconvincing.Thc first motive was mentioned in the FIR whereas the second motive was introduced at the trial stage. There was also an alleged dying statement Ex.PG which had been disbelieved not only by the trial Court but also by the High Court. The main finding of the High Court was that if the story to the effect that beating of Safdar Ali PW had attracted the eye witnesses to the place of occurrence was disbelieved or excluded from consideration then there would remain no probable cause for the presence of the eye‑witnesses on the spot where the murder of the deceased took place. In other words according to the High Court the eye‑witnesses in fact did not see the occurrence and the injured PW Safdar Ali did not receive injuries in the course of the present occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that the presence of the eye‑witnesses on the spot should have not been doubted by the High Court, but, m our considered view the appraisal of evidence has been properly made and therefore no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. As a result this petition is dismissed. A.A./M‑997/S Petition dismissed.