' IJAZ-UL-HASAN KHAN, J.--- Muhammad Suleman and Mst. Zeenat Bibi, respondents were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab, in case F.I.R. No,12 of 2001 dated 24-1-2001, registered under sections 302/201/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Noorpur Thal, for murder of Abdul Aziz. At the conclusion of trial, respondents were convicted and sentenced as follows:-- Muhammad Suleman.--- convicted and sentenced under section 302(b), P.P.C. To death with direction to pay a sum of Rs,1,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default whereof to undergo S.I. For six months; for offence under section 201, P.P.C. To undergo R.I.
For seven years with a fine of Rs,10,000, or in default whereof to suffer S.I. For four months.
Mst. Zeenat Bibi.--- For offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. To imprisonment for life and for offence under section 201, P.P.C. With a fine of Rs,5,000, or in default whereof to undergo S.I. For two months.
2. Respondents, feeling aggrieved, filed Criminal Petition No,1051 of 2001 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Learned trial Court sent Murder Reference No,424 of 2001 for confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence awarded to MUhammad Suleman The learned Division Bench of the Lahore /High Court, Lahore vide judgment, dated 29-11-2006 accepted the appeal, and set aside the judgment passed by trial Court and acquitted the respondents. Ghulam Habib petitioner has filed instant pe,tition, seeking leave to appeal from the impugned judgment, dated 29-11-2006 of learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore.
3. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been mentioned in detail in the impugned judgment as well as in the memo. Of petition.
4. Sheikh Khizar Hayat, Advocate, appearing on behalf of petitioner contended that learned High Court misapplied the relevant law while delivering the impugned judgment; that overwhelming evidence was available on the record to connect the respondents with the commission of crime and that impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures which can be allowed to remain intact.
5. Ms. Yasmin Saigal, Deputy Prosecutor-General, on the contrary, repudiated the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned judgment, whole-heartedly.
6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at considerable length in the light of material on the file.
7. Needless to emphasize that it is worth and truthfulness of ocular account furnished by a witness which is to be taken into consideration for believing the same and relying for conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner though argued at length but could not point out any misreading or non- appraisal of evidence warranting interference by this Court. There is nothing wrong with the reasons advanced by learned High Court while passing finding of acquittal in favour of the respondents. The ground which found favour with learned High Court in passing the impugned judgment are neither fanciful nor conjectural. These are backed by the material on record. This Court in the case of Muhammad Rafique v. Mohabbat Khan and others 2008 SCM R 715 observed that:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that in the facts of present case, the acquittal of respondent offended the principle of safe administration of criminal justice and would not create double presumption of innocence in favour of accused. This Court is not supposed to interfere in the judgment of acquittal unless, very strong reasons appeared on the case regarding the perversity of the judgment. The mere fact that witnesses were natural and occurrence took place in the daylight would not be sufficient to believe or disbelieve the evidence rather the real test is whether the witnesses were truthful and confidence-inspiring in the peculiar facts of the case to be relied upon for conviction. In the present case, the prosecution evidence did not fulfil the above test to the satisfaction of the two Courts and we also do not find any good reason to differ with the High Court."
8. Pursuant to above, we are confident that the material on record has been properly appreciated and evaluated in para.10 of the impugned judgment and no case for grant of leave is made out.
Finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss the same and decline to grant leave.