IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 27th May, 2002, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby on accepting the Criminal Appeals Nos.918 and 959 of 2000, filed by the respondent to challenge the conviction awarded to them under section 302(b), P.P.C. By the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal vide judgment, dated 26th June, 2000, has been accepted as a result whereof respondents have been acquitted of the charge by means of impugned judgment, Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner bearing No,466 of 2000 has also been dismissed by means of same judgment.
2. Prosecution case against respondents Nos.1 and 2 is that they fired upon the deceased Muhammad Ameer to avenge the old enmity of murder. The fire of Sher Muhammad hit the deceased on the right knee due to which he fell down, thereafter, respondent No,2 also fired at the deceased, which too hit on the same part of the body i,e, right knee. As far as other acquitted accused namely Muhammad Zubair, Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Mukhtar, Khizer Hayat and Umar Hayat are concerned, they also fired but without causing any injury to the deceased.
Accordingly the case was registered against them vide F.I.R. Exh.P.D. On the complaint of petitioner Muhammad Zulqarnain. Investigation of the case was carried out and ultimately they were sent up to face the trial. As the respondents along with acquitted persons did not plead guilty to the charge, therefore, prosecution produced evidence to substantiate acquisition against them.
Ultimately they were found guilty for the commission of offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. And following sentences were awarded to them:-- Respondents Nos.1 and 2
(1) Under section 302(b), P .P.C. Life imprisonment
(2) Under section 544-A, Cr .P.C. To pay compensation of Rs.50,000 each to the legal heirs of the deceased.
(3) Co-accused were acquitted of the charge.
Appeals filed by the respondents were accepted by learned High Court and ultimately they were acquitted of the charge. Similarly Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner for enhancement of sentence was also dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that there is no contradiction in the ocular testimony and medical evidence. Therefore, learned High Court without cogent reasons has accepted their appeals.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for caveat argued that contradiction in ocular testimony of the eye-witness as well as medical evidence is apparent, therefore, learned High Court has rightly acquitted them from the charge.
5. It would be appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow the injuries received by the deceased Muhammad Ameer on his person:--
(1) A fire-arm wound of entrance 6 c.m. x 3 c.m. With inverted and irregular edges, blackening was present around the wound of entry, on back and outer aspect of right knee joint underlying bones were fractured into multiple pieces which were dislocated.
(2) A fire-arm wound of exit 10 c.m. x 1 c.m. With averted edges on front of right knee joint."
6. It may be noted the three eye-witnesses, produced by the prosecution, namely (i) complainant/petitioner Muhammad Zulqarnain, (ii) Mst. Bevi widow of deceased and Muhammad Sarwar, have stated that both the accused fired on the right knee of the deceased due to which he fell down.
7. A perusal of their testimony indicates that it was not possible that how both the accused had fired simultaneously on the same part of the body of the deceased. It is important to note that according to the F.I.R. Both the respondents were armed with .12 bore guns, but no recovery was effected from their possession. Learned High Court has compared the ocular testimony with the medical evidence and on the basis of same, has concluded that there is a clear contradiction. It may be further noted that there is also a delay in registration of F.I.R. For which no explanation has been offered.
8. Since learned High Court had neither proceeded to decide the case after having taken into consideration the material available on record and had not left any piece of prosecution out of consideration nor there is misreading of prosecution evidence, therefore, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for interference by this Court.
Petition is dismissed and leave declined.