JUDGMENT KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.-- FIR No. 309 dated 14.7.1999 of the Police Station Miana Gondal of District Mandi Bahuddin accused one Sher Muhammad of having raised a Lalkara as a result whereof his son Irfan caught hold Khizar Hayat deceased from his arms whereafter another son of the said Sher Muhammad, namely Shahid Imran fired a shot with his .30 bore pistol which landed at the front chest of the said deceased who consequently died at the spot. All three of them were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Mandi Bahuddin who, through his judgment dated 10.8.2000, acquitted Sher Muhammad and Irfan accused but found Shahid convict guilty of the offence under section 308, PPC and punished him with ten years' R.I. With a further direction to him to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as Diyat.
2. Shahid convict approached the Lahore High Court with Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 2000 impugning the abovementioned conviction and punishment recorded against him while Umar Hayat complained, filed Criminal Revision No. 610 of 2000 in the Lahore High 'Court seeking enhancement of the punishment awarded of the said convict. Through a consolidated judgment dated $.4.2003 a learned Single Bench of the Lahore, High Court converted the conviction of Shahid convict from one under section 308, PPC to one under section 318, PPC arid altered the sentence often years' R.I. To a punishment of five years' R.I. The direction regarding payment of Diyat was, however, maintained though the convict was permitted to pay the said amount of Diyat in 36 instalments in terms of section 331, PPC. .
3. Umar Hayat complainant has now petitioned this Court seeking Shahid convict's conviction under section 302, PPC and the consequent imposition of the prescribed penalty on him.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the record in the light of the submissions mad^ before us.
5. The occurrence had admittedly taken place at the Dera of the convict. If there was any enmity between the parties then there was no explanation as to why the deceased could or-should have accompanied Shahid Imran convict to his Dera. There is also no explanation as to why the complainant Umar Hayat (PW.9), who was his brother-in- law, should have gone out in search of the deceased to bring him back to his house. The learned High Court was, therefore, justified in declaring that both the eye-witnesses who were closely related to the deceased, were un-natural and chance witnesses of the occurrence in question. The prosecution story of Irfan accused having held the deceased by the arms and then Shahid convict firing a shot at the deceased risking his on. Brother's life was equally unnatural and un-believable. No corroboration worth the name was available on record in support of such kind of prosecution claim. In the circumstances no exception could be taken to the discarding of prosecution case by the learned High Court. Needless to add that after rejecting the prosecution testimony what was left on record was the statement of Shahid convict made under section 342, Cr.P.C. On which he had rightly been convicted under section 318, PPC and adequately punished.
6. The impugned judgment does not admit of any interference. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. .