' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, the instant case, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujar Khan vide judgment dated 21-12-2000 acquitted the respondents and the said judgment was maintained by the learned High Court vide impugned judgment. Relevant para from the judgment is reproduced herein below:-- "On careful examination of the evidence, circumstances appearing in the case and in the light of the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, we find that P.Ws. Tauqeer Ahmed (complainant) and Jahangir Ahmed on account of their close relationship as they are real brother of the deceased are interested and chance witnesses. They appear to be basically dishonest as they gave evidence with a motive other than of telling the truth, in that, they even suppressed the evidence which they were supposed to know in the ordinary course of events. The incident does not appear to have taken place in the manner, as alleged. The Prosecution case is pregnant with - serious doubts and is full of confusions. The eye-witnesses have supported prosecution version as per the contents of the F.I.R. While recording their examination in chief but in cross-examination, the credibility of their evidence has been shaken badly. The eye-witnesses have shown reckless desregard for the truth. The conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court being based on correct appreciation of evidence needs no interference by this court as the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has failed to point out any breach, violating and non-application of any recognized principle of the administration of criminal justice in acquitting the respondents."
2. Learned counsel failed to point out any violation of the principle laid down by this court in the case of Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 11) warranting interference in the impugned judgment. It is to be noted that both the courts have taken into consideration incriminating material available on record and on the basis of the same, concluded that the respondents are not guilty for the commission of offence. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment unless it is shown that there are violations of the principle laid down by this court in the judgment noted herein above.
3. Thus for the foregoing reasons, we find no force in this petition which is dismissed. Leave declined.