1982 PLP 684 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 16th February, 1982. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑This petition by Mashri petitioner is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 30‑9‑1979, acquitting respondents 1 to 4 and dismissing his revision petition against the acquittal of respondents 5 and 6.

2. The six respondents were tried for the murder of Sultan and his son Noora. The offence was committed during the night between 24th and 25th of July, 1974, in the area of Kot Kala, Police Station Mid Ranjha, District Sargodha. The assailants were armed variously with guns and spears. Amir respondent raised a lalkara whereafter Sohni, Amir, Bakhsha and Sultan respondents, are stated to have given spear blows to Sultan (deceased) When his son Noora (deceased) went forward to rescue him, Muhammad respondent fired at him with his gun and Sohni respondent gave him two spear blows. Apart from Shera (P. W. 11) the occurrence was also witnessed by Ahmad (P. W. 10) and Shera son of Hayat (not produced at the trial). It is alleged that after murdering Sultan at the spot the accused dragged his body towards bagari by his hands to a distance of 2 killas and threw it in a cotton field. The motive for the occurrence is stated to be that about 30 years earlier Sultan deceased was tried along with 5 other persons for the murder of one Gamman who was the real paternal uncle of Amir and Sultan Ali respondents and maternal uncle of Sohni, Fatta and Muhammad respondents, but they were acquitted. This murder according to the prosecution, has been committed by the respondents to avenge that murder (of Gamman). Noora (deceased) though seriously injured, did not die at the spot and was taken to the Police Station in injured condition where the F. I. R. was recorded on his statement, at 5.30 a. m. on the same day. The Police recorded a supplementary statement of Noora (deceased) wherein he mentioned the part played by Fatta respondent which has not been mentioned in his earlier statement. Noora subsequently died of the injuries sustained by him during the incident and these statements were used as dying declara tions at the trial, in support whereof the prosecution also produced Ahmad (P. W. 10) and Shera (P. W. 11), eye‑witnesses.

3. The learned trial Court convicted respondents I to 4 but acquitted respondents 5 and

6. The four convicts filed an appeal in the High Court against their conviction whereas the complainant filed a revision against the acquittal of respondents 5 and

6. The learned High Court vide its judgment accepted the appeal of the respondents and acquitted them of the charges against them and also dismissed the revision petition against acquittal of respondents 5 and

6. Hence the present petition.

4. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that the learned High Court had not correctly appraised the evidence on the record and had, therefore, erred in acquitting respondents 1 to 4 and dismissing the petitioner's revision petition.

5. We have gone through the judgments of the two Courts below, the dying declarations as also the evidence of the eye‑witnesses, with the help of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. He has not been able to point out that the High Court had ignored or misread any material portion of the evidence on the record. We ourselves have reappraised the evidence and are inclined to agree with the reasons given by the High Court in the impugned judgment for disbelieving the dying declarations and the testimony of the eye‑witnesses and acquitting respondents 1 to

4. For the same reasons the High Court was justified in dismissing the complainant's (i. e. present petitioner's) revision petition. As such we do not consider it appropriate to grant Leave for further consideration of the same evidence. The petition is consequently dismissed. Petition dismissed.