' RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, J.--- Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Afzal respondents were convicted for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. By the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Mianwali vide judgment dated 26-7-2000. Muhammad Akram respondent No,1 was sentenced to death as Tazir, whereas; Muhammad Afzal respondent No,2 was sentenced to imprisonment for life as Tazir. Both the respondents were ordered to pay a sum of Rs,one Lac each to the heirs of Sikandar Hayat Khan deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default thereof to undergo S.I. For six months each. The respondents/convicts challenged their convictions and sentences before the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore through Criminal Appeal No,1173 of 2000, whereas; Muhammad Hayat Khan petitioner/complainant filed Criminal Revision No,572 of 2000 before the learned High Court. Record of the case was forwarded to the learned High Court for confirmation of the sentence of death awarded to Muhammad Akram. Respondent, registered separately as Murder Reference No,409 of 2000. Vide judgment dated 18-4-2006 sought to be impugned through the instant criminal petitions, criminal appeal filed by the said respondents was accepted and they were acquitted on the charge by extending benefit of doubt in their favour. Consequently, the murder reference was answered in negative. Accordingly, sentence of death passed against Muhammad Akram respondent was not confirmed.
2. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Mr. Faiz-ur-Rehman, learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in both the petitions have been heard. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment and record of the case has been gone through carefully and minutely. Learned High Court has reappraised the entire evidence available on record by making thread bare examination of each piece of evidence supported with reasons based A on record. No piece of evidence incriminating. In nature produced by the prosecution appears to have been misread, omitted from consideration or not appraised in its true perspective. The learned High Court having as above said reappraised the evidence, has concluded that statement of Muhammad Hayat Khan complainant (P. W.12) had actually been recorded by the police officer at the place of occurrence, therefore, possibility could not safely be ruled out of consideration that the F.I.R. In the case has been registered after due deliberation and preliminary investigation at the place of occurrence, moreover; father of Sikandar Hayat Khan deceased was admittedly inimical towards the above said respondents, as it was admitted at the trial by the complainant that deceased was an accused person in case for offence under section 324, P.P.C. Which case had been lodged by Muhammad Akram respondent and it was not disputed that at the time of the present occurrence the above said criminal case was pending trial and on the day of present occurrence the parties had attended a hearing before the trial Court in connection with the criminal case registered against the deceased under section 324, P.P.C. It has further been concluded by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment that even Abdul Ghaffar Khan (P.W.13) was quite inimical towards the respondents being a nominated accused person in the above mentioned criminal case lodged by Muhammad Akram respondent and P.W.13 was a person who had allegedly caused fire-arm injuries to one Amanullah Khan. Inasmuch as; Abdul Ghaffar Khan (P.W.13) was an accused person in the said case, whereas, Abdul Ghaffar Khan (P.W.13) had also lodged criminal case against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and others for causing injuries to a paternal uncle of Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Learned High Court while appraising the prosecution evidence also came to a definite conclusion that the above said P.Ws in the present case were also admittedly the chance witnesses which conclusion has been based and refers to the prosecution evidence containing convincing reasons leaving no other view possible to be taken in the circumstances of the case. Also the learned High Court while scanning the prosecution evidence on the point relating to the gun shot injuries suffered by the deceased in the light of the medical evidence has come to the conclusion that material improvements were made by the complainant in his deposition at the trial in order to bring his case in line with the medical evidence. Moreover, the prosecution story did not fit in the circumstances of the case as alleged by the relevant P.Ws. Which remained unsubstantiated. Learned High Court in view of the pitched enmity between the parties found the alleged motive as of no significance and the recovery of fire arms from the respondents during the course of investigation of the case appropriately held to be inconsequential, as admittedly no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence, so as to connect the recovered weapons with the alleged murder nor the ocular account found any further corroboration from any other piece of evidence as independently the same was not worth of implicit reliance.
In our considered view the impugned judgment is unexceptionable not suffering from any infirmity factual or legal. No case of leave to appeal has been made out, therefore, both these petitions are dismissed. .