' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court filed by father of deceased Nazeer Ahmed is directed against the judgment dated 31-5-1999 vide which a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court dated 1-12-1993 through which the respondents were convicted for the murder of them. Aforementioned deceased. The learned High Court acquitted the respondents, inter alia on the ground that respondent Irshad was not nominated in the F.I.R. And there was no occasion for him to make an extra judicial confession; that the only two eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely Uzma Nazeer C.W.1 and Qaiser Nazeer C.W.2 had initially supported the F.I.R. But thereafter they changed the version during trial; that these witnesses were children of impressionable age and had been tutored by their uncle or their grandparents and that the prosecution evidence in the afore-referred circumstances did not inspire confidence to sustain conviction.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned High Court proceeded to acquit the respondents on grounds which are rather conjectural; that the Court did not appreciate the evidence of Mst. Uzma Nazeer C.W.1 and Qaiser Nazeer C.W.2 in proper context as they were natural witnesses and had no reason to falsely depose against their real mother; that the learned Trial Court had rightly disallowed the defence counsel to confront these witnesses with their previous statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. And that the acquittal has led to a great miscarriage of justice.
3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, supported learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that the acquittal was not justified and that in rendering the finding of acquittal, the Court has non-read the material two witnesses namely Mst. Uzma Nazeer C.W.1 and Qaiser Nazeer C.W.2.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the impugned judgment by submitting that the impugned judgment is well-reasoned; that the testimony of the only two witnesses namely Uzma Nazeer C.W.1 and Qaiser Nazeer C.W.2 did not inspire confidence inasmuch as in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C, they supported the version given in the F.I.R. Registered on the statement of respondent Nasreen Akthar wife of the deceased and mother of these witnesses and that it was later on when they were got tutored by their grandparents that they came out with the version implicating the respondents.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as also the State and have gone through the evidence with their assistance.
6. Admittedly in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,62 of 1993 (Exh.PB/1) dated 30-3-1993, Nasreen Akhtar respondent wife of Nazeer Ahmed deceased, was the complainant and she had named real brothers of Nazeer Ahmed as accused and she had alleged that those brothers wanted the deceased to share the property gifted to him by Abdul Sattar, uncle of Nazeer Ahmed as the former was issueless. It is further evident from statement of the Inquiry Officer Muhammad Aslam P.W.15 that the afore-referred two eye-witnesses had in their statements recorded by him under section 161, Cr.P.C. Supported the F.I.R. Version. Even otherwise, if the remaining two male respondents had caught hold of the deceased, there was no occasion of respondent Nasreen Akhtar to catch the deceased with his legs with a view to facilitate the other accused to cause the murder. The evidence led and the story alleged in the afore-referred reasons is not free from doubt.
7. That being so, we do not find the impugned judgment to be either arbitrary or conjectural warranting interference in appeal. Consequently, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed and the bail bonds and sureties issued against the respondents stands discharged accordingly.