' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Respondent Muhammad Nawaz was tried in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,196 of 2001 dated 17-11-2001 under section 302, P.P.C. At Police Station Tarkhani, Samundri on the allegation that on the fateful day and time, he intentionally ran over his tractor on Ghulam Qadir and caused his death (complainant's father). The motive alleged was that the appellant Saeed Ahmed complainant/P.W.8 owed a sum of Rs,100 to the appellant and on refusal of the complainant, the respondent resorted to abuses which prompted the deceased to rebuke the appellant which provoked him and he caused the intentional murder. The learned trial Court convicted the respondent under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to death. The learned High Court however allowed the appeal as it found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to sustain conviction.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant seeks leave on the ground that the learned High Court proceeded to acquit the respondent on conjectures; that the evidence led by the prosecution was not properly appreciated by the learned High Court; that both the eyewitnesses though related, were natural witnesses of the occurrence; that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Stood explained by the fact that immediately after the occurrence, the deceased had to be hospitalized; that a bare reading of the postmortem examination would indicate that the injuries suffered by the deceased were the direct result of the tractor having been run over the deceased and that the acquittal of the respondent has led to a grave miscarriage of justice.
3. Having heard petitioner's learned counsel at some length, we note that admittedly there is a delay of nine hours in lodging the F.I.R.; that the motive set was trivial in nature; that both the eyewitnesses namely P.W.8 Saeed Ahmed (complainant) and P.W.9 Khalid Mehmood are closely related to the deceased being son and nephew respectively; that though the occurrence took place in a broad daylight at a public place yet not a single witness appeared to support the prosecution case; that the injuries suffered by the deceased were merely abrasions and the finding that it reflected a conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence was not conjectural. That being so, the finding of acquittal in respondent's favor is neither against the evidence led nor arbitrary. In these circumstances no case for interference is made out. The petition lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.