' It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the murder in question which had taken place at about midnight was the result of blind occurrence; that the alleged eye-witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time; that if the said witnesses had been present there then they would not have permitted their near and dear one to bleed to death as the solitary fire-arm injury on the person of the deceased had been caused on his knee and according to the medical evidence the deceased had died as a result of bleeding; that there is no explanation offered by the prosecution as to why the deceased could not have been rushed for medical assistance on 1-1/2 to 2-00 hours and that these circumstances were a sufficient indication of the fact that no one was present with the deceased when he had been injured. It is further argued that according to the prosecution, the petitioner had come to the place of occurrence after arming himself with a fire-arm with the intention to kill the deceased which claim becomes doubtful as the culprit had fired only a solitary shot at the deceased choosing a .Non-vital part of his body i.e, knee as the target and had caused no injury on the vital part of the body especially when the 'deceased was available to him without any resistance.
2. It is, however, contended on behalf of the complainant that the complainant party had not the kind of enmity or against the petitioner which would have prompted them to falsely implicate him in the occurrence and further that the petitioner was the solitary assailant nominated as the killer of Boora deceased.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that this is a fit case where the evidence needs to the reappraised to determine whether the conviction and the punishment recorded against the petitioner proceeded on the established principles of appraisement of evidence.
4. Consequently, this petition is allowed and leave is granted.