1985 PLP 95 (SCMR)

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Sheikh Muhammad complainant has filed the present petition against the acquittal of Ghulam Muhammad and Shah Muhammad respondents. The two respondents were tried for murdering Zakir Ali on 28-12-1976 at 3 p.m., in Village Khanpur, Tehsil and District Lahore. The F.I.R. about the occurrence was lodged by Sheikh Muhammad (petitioner herein), a brother of the deceased, at 3.45 p.m., on the same day, which was recorded by Amanullah S.I.

2. The motive for the occurrence is stated to be that 5/A days prior to the present occurrence, Rafaqat Ali son of Ghulam Muhammad respondent damaged the Jawi and Bursin crops of Zakir Ali deceased and thus altercation ensued, who gave slaps to Rafaqat Ali. 3.The incident briefly described was that the respondents /accused came armed with rifle and gun respectively, raising Lalkaras saying that Zakir Ali will be taught lesson for slapping and abusing Rafaqat Ali. Thereafter, both the respondents started firing upon Zakir Ali. Ghulam Muhammad's fire shot rested on the chest of the deceased who fell on the ground. The petitioner and his companion tried to give a hand to the fallen victim but were fired at. They, however, escaped unhurt. The accused/ respondents ran away from the spot. After recording the F.I.R. the Sub-Inspector visited the spot and recovered blood-stained earth (Exh . P. E.); 2 empties of bullets (Exh.P/1-2) and 3 empties of cartridges (P.7/1-3). He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. Both the accused were arrested after 22 days of the occurrence. A rifle was recovered from Ghulam Muhammad accused while a .12 bore gun was recovered from Shah Muhammad accused, but they did not match with the empty cartridges recovered from the spot.

4. At the trial the prosecution relied on the testimony of two eye witnesses, namely, Sheikh Muhammad P.W.5 (brother of the deceased) and Muhammad Munawar P.W.7 (nephew of the deceased); the recoveries; the medical evidence and the motive.

5. The learned trial Court believed the prosecution evidence, convicted the accused and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000 each under section 302/34, P.P.C. On appeal, however, they were acquitted by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 19-3-1983. Feeling aggrieved the complainant has filed the present petition against the acquittal of the respondents.

6. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at length and have also gone through the impugned judgment. We notice that the prosecution case rests more or less entirely on the testimony of two eye-witnesses namely Shah Muhammad P.W.5 (brother of the deceased) and Muhammad Munawar P.W.7 (nephew of the deceased). Their previous enmity with the accused party is established on the record as is evident from paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment. There are discrepancies in their testimony and the medical evidence on the record. Moreover, their testimony is not corroborated by any independent evidence. , We feel that the High Court was justified in holding that the conviction of the respondents could not be maintained on the evidence on the record and rightly acquitted them. The petition is consequently dismissed as having no merit. M . Z . M Petition dismissed.