' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.---The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 4-7-2006 wherein the appeal filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was accepted and were acquitted. The detailed facts have already been mentioned in para.2 of the impugned judgment, however, necessary facts giving rise to this petition are that respondents Nos.1 and 2 are involved in case F.I.R. No,42 of 2000 registered at Police Station Islamgarh on the complaint of Abdul Majeed present petitioner registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. For the murder of Abdul Rashid deceased. The investigating agency investigated the case and after investigating found them guilty, submitted challan before the trial Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanpur vide its judgment dated 5-11-2003 convicted the respondents Nos.1 and 2 under section 302(b) each and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. They were also directed to pay Rs,50,000 each to the legal heirs of the deceased. In case of default in payment of fine, they were to suffer six months' S.I. Each. Respondents being aggrieved filed above referred appeal before the Lahore High Court Bahawlapur Bench which was accepted and respondents were acquitted.
Hence, the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court had awarded life imprisonment to both the respondents as the prosecution had proved the case beyond any shadow of doubt against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 but the learned trial Court had erred in law not to award capital punishment of death to them in view of finding of the trial Court to the extent that the prosecution had proved the case against them and trial Court had awarded life imprisonment without specifying any reasons which are mandatory in nature qua awarding life imprisonment by the trial. Court. He further maintains that learned High Court had acquitted the respondents on surmises and conjectures by misreading and non-reading of record. He further maintains that learned High Court had erred in law to discard the ocular account furnished by Abdul Majeed P.W.3 and Muhammad Nawaz P.W.4. He further maintains that presence of eye- witnesses at the spot was natural but this aspect of the case was not considered by the learned High Court in its true perspective. The learned High Court had erred in law to discard the recovery evidence in spite of the fact that weapon of offence of hatchet which was found blood stained and blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of respondent No,1 and was rejected on surmises and conjectures as evident from para.10 of the impugned judgment and similarly the learned trial ,Court had also erred in law to discard the motive and medical evidence which evidence had proved by the, prosecution against the respondents and believed by the trial court whereas the learned High Court had discarded the same by misreading and non-reading of record and in violation of the principles laid down by this court in various pronouncements. He further maintains that respondent No,1 has specifically been attributed fatal injury on the person of deceased whereas respondent No,2 fully facilitated him to commit the murder of deceased. Thus they are fully responsible for the murder of deceased but this fact was not considered in its true perspective. The recovery of blood stained weapon of offence hatchet at the potation of respondent No,1 was sufficient to connect him with the commission of offence but this fact was not considered by the learned High Court in its true perspective. The ocular account furnished by Abdul Majeed P.W.3 and Muhammad Nawaz P.W.4 was duly corroborated by the statement of I.O. P.W.6 Abdul Razzaq Shakir and P.W.7 Dr. Rashid Iqbal.
3. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. Strongly resisted the petition.
4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record: The learned High Court had taken a lot of pain to reappraise the evidence of eye-witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 came to the conclusion that their presence at the spot was not natural and the manner of narration of incidence in the contents of F.I.R. And in their statements before the trial Court is also not natural. The finding had been recorded by the learned High Court after re- examining the evidence on record. We have also re-examined the entire record in the interest of justice and fair playa We also do not find any infirmity or illegality in the finding of fact recorded by the learned High Court in para.8 of the judgment with regard to the ocular evidence furnished by the prosecution. But the learned High Court had also observed that the medical evidence is always a supporting evidence as medical evidence could not depict with regard to identification of the accused who had A fired or hit the deceased by his weapon of offence. This finding of the learned High Court is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in Machia's case PLD 1976 SC 695.
The learned High Court had also taken a lot of pain to re-examine the recovery evidence and come to the conclusion that recovery evidence is not a worth reliance and was rejected by the learned High Court as evident from para.10 of the impugned judgment. Similarly, the learned High Court had also come to the conclusion that respondents were implicated in a case in hand for murder of Abdul Rashid deceased in view of previous motive on suspicion after the recovery of dead body from an open field. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are exactly the same which were raised before the learned High Court as evident from para.6 of the impugned judgment which were duly considered by the learned High Court and rejected the same with cogent reasons after application of mind as evident from paragraphs 8 to 10 of the impugned judgment. It is an admitted fact that according to the prosecution, occurrence took place at 11/12 of previous night of 7-6-2002. The place of occurrence is Chak No,191/1R. This fact does not appeal to reason that the deceased and the eye-witnesses were sitting outside the house at late hours in a rural area where generally the people had gone to sleep much earlier, therefore, basis of their presence is not believable coupled with the fact that the respondents had taken the deceased along with them and he was not murdered by them immediately the incident had taken place about one and a half hour, therefore, learned High Court after observing all these facts had come to the conclusion that the presence of the eye-witnesses and manner of happening the incidence was not appealed to the common sense. It is an admitted fact that two eyewitnesses are relatives of the complainant and they were not injured during the occurrence, so there is no circumstantial guarantee or judicial sanctity of their presence on the spot at the time of occurrence. They were close relative of the deceased. Had they been present at the spot then they must try to catch hold of the respondents coupled with the unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. Leads to the conclusion that they were procured and induced to become witness to the occurrence. It is admitted fact that both the eye-witnesses are related inter se and also related to the deceased and also they had enmity with the respondents in terms of the motive alleged by the prosecution in the case in hand. In these circumstances; the evidence of these witnesses required some corroboration to ensure that they were speaking the truth which in the present case is missing as, observed by the learned High Court while not believing the recovery and other evidence on record as highlighted in the preceding paragraphs. It is pertinent to mention here C that motive by itself in a ,case like this serves as a double edge weapon. It could prompt false application on the basis of suspicion. Now in every criminal case, the question is of the veracity of the witnesses, therefore, the nature of corroboratory evidence required in any particular case to prove the guilt of the accused must depend upon the question whether the witnesses are interested or dis-interested but also upon the question whether the witnesses are witnesses of truth or not and with this observation we have examined the ()dinar account furnished in the case in hand and we have come to the conclusion that the finding of the High Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. It is also a settled law that there are different parameters/principles prescribed by this court with regard to decide the criminal petitions against conviction and criminal petitions against acquittal. The impugned judgment with regard E to acquittal should be either perverse, arbitrary or without any sustainable reasons as law laid down by this Court in Ghulam Sakindar's E case PLD 1.985 SC 11.
5. In the light of principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, we see no illegality committed by the learned High Court while acquitting the respondent with cogent reasons as mentioned above in the preceding paragraphs, therefore, petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. Leave declined.