' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Respondent Zaidi and one Javed were proceeded against vide F.I.R. No,433 dated 27-4-1999, registered on the statement of Haider Zaman, P.W.7 for the murder of Qamar Zaman, his brother. The prosecution story as given in the said F.I.R. Is that on the fateful day at about 4-30 p.m., both the accused, armed with weapons fired at the complainant and Qamar Zaman deceased and the latter died at the spot. Accused Javed absconded while Zaidi was arrested and sent up for trial. During trial the ocular account of the prosecution case consists of two eye-witnesses namely P.W.7, the complainant and Khalid Zaman P.W.8 and the latter is the son of the brother-in-law of P.W.7. The trial culminated in the conviction of respondent Zaidi under section 302, P.P.C. And he was sentenced to life imprisonment and was also awarded compensation of Rs,40,000 under section 544-A or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and the amount, if recovered to be given to the legal heirs of the deceased. He was also convicted and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under section 324, P.P.C. As also the fine of Rs,5,000 or in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment. In appeal, filed by the respondent, the learned High Court acquitted him vide the impugned judgment and the grounds which found favour with it were firstly, that the locale of the injuries was not consistent with the ocular account secondly, although it was a daylight occurrence but none of the eyewitnesses could specify the nature of weapon used and thirdly six empties recovered could not be wedded with the alleged offence as there positive report from the Forensic Science Expert was produced in evidence.
2. The learned State counsel impugns the judgment of acquittal on the ground that it was a broad- daylight occurrence; that the F.I.R. Was lodged promptly and that the accused were armed and during trial the complainant and the other witnesses Khalid Zaman, P.W.8 made statements consistent 'with the earlier version given during investigation and that the prosecution case was proved beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain conviction on a capital charge. He further added that the absconsion of respondent Zaidi is a further incriminating circumstance to connect him with the alleged offence.
3. Having heard learned State counsel, we note that the learned counsel has not been able to point out any piece of evidence which could persuade us to hold that the findings of fact referred to above are against the weight of evidence brought on record. Furthermore, he admitted that the respondent was not attributed any specific injury on the person of the deceased; that he was attributed general firing and that the co-accused Javed who was attributed similar role absconded and was killed before the conclusion of trial.
4. In the afore referred circumstances, we are of the view that the reasons given by the learned High Court for acquitting the accused are neither perverse nor arbitrary nor against the evidence led by the prosecution. The findings of acquittal are, therefore, unexceptionable. We do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed.