' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Amjad and Shakeel were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Sheikhupura for committing the murder of one Maqsood at about 1-30 a.m. On the night between 15th and 16th of September, 1994. Both of them were found guilty of the said charge; were convicted under sections 460 and 302/34, P.P.C. And while Amjad had been punished with death, his co-convict, namely, Shakeel was directed to suffer to sentence of imprisonment for life. On an appeal filed by them, Shakeel convict was acquitted by the learned High Court through a judgment dated 28-11-2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No,88 of 1988 whereas the sentence of death awarded to Amjad convict was confirmed as a result of dismissal of the said appeal to his extent.
2. Hence this petition by Amjad Ali convict.
3. It is submitted before us that the two alleged eye-witnesses namely, Noor Muhammad complainant (P.W.3) who is the father of the deceased and Akhtar Mehmood (P.W.4) who is a brother of the deceased, had not witnessed the occurrence as they were away on their respective places of work; that the occurrence in question had gone un-witness and it was on account of mere suspicion and as a result of fabrication and concoction and Amjad petitioner had been implicated in the crime in question; that the said submission was being strengthened by the fact that the F.I.R. Had been recorded after an unexplained delay of more than nine hours when the police station was only four miles away from the place of occurrence; that further doubts are available in the prosecution case on account of the absence of any blood-stains on the roof to the house of the complainant and instead availability of bloodstained earth on the roof of the house of a neighbor of the complainant, namely Muhammad Khan; that the motive in the present case was a double-edged weapon which could well have led to the false implication of the petitioner on account of mere suspicion; that no untoward incident had taken place between the parties for more than two years since the release of the accused on bail in the earlier case; that the medical evidence was not in consonance with the ocular testimony; that the occurrence had taken place at the dead of the night and had gone unwitnessed and that in the circumstances the conviction recorded against Amjad petitioner could not be sustained.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is a fit case where the entire evidence deserved to be reappraised in the light of the above noted submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
5. This petition is, therefore, allowed and leave is granted for the said purpose.