' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, ACTG. C.J.--Above-noted petitions have been filed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 20-9-2001, whereby conviction/sentence awarded to Murtaza and Maqsood under section 302(b), P.P.C. To undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,25,000 in default whereof to further undergo two years' R.I. Each has been maintained whereas one of the co-accused Umer Hayat has been acquitted of the charge. On 28-5-2003, notice was issued in the following terms to Umer Hayat to ascertain as to whether he has been rightly acquitted:- "After having heard the learned counsel at some length it seems appropriate if at first instance notice is issued to Umer Hayat (acquitted accused) that as to why he should not be convicted and sentenced in view of specific role attributed to him and the similarity in evidence on the basis whereof Maqsood (co-accused) has been awarded imprisonment for life. Insofar as the question of enhancement of life imprisonment awarded to Murtaza and Maqsood to that of death is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the dictum as laid down in Muhammad Ilyas and another v. Muhammad Sufian and another PLD 2001, SC 610 cannot be made applicable in this case in view of distinguishable facts. The discretion as exercised by learned High Court up to the extent of Maqsood and Murtaza is strictly in accordance with law and settled norms of justice and accordingly the conclusion as arrived by learned High Court does not warrant any interference."
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the caveat and have also gone through the impugned judgment carefully. In our opinion, the learned High Court was quite justified in acquitting Umer Hayat on the ground that evidence furnished against him by the prosecution remained uncorroborated, therefore, for the sake of A safe administration of justice and following the rule of caution benefit of doubt was extended to him. It may be seen that in the order reproduced above, this Court had declined to consider the question of enhancement of sentence of remaining two convicts namely Murtaza and Maqsood. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the acquittal of Umer Hayat, as such Criminal Petition No,721-L of 2001 is dismissed.
4. Now turning to Jail Petition No,193 of 2001 which has been filed by convicts Murtaza and Maqsood, a perusal of the impugned judgment suggests to hold that the prosecution successfully established guilt against them by adducing evidence of eye-witnesses P.Ws. Ghulam and Khadim Hussain. Their testimony gets corroboration from the medical evidence furnished by Dr. Nawazish Ali as well as recovery of incriminating articles. The motive, as set up in the F.I.R., has also been proved against them. Therefore, no interference in the impugned judgment to the extent of these two accused persons is called for. As a consequence of above discussion, jail petition also stands dismissed.