SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN JAFFERY, J.---This petition, under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed against the judgment dated 9-5-2007, passed by learned Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Criminal Appeal No, 92 of 2004 was dismissed.
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have elaborately been narrated in the impugned judgment as well as in the memo of petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged recovery of weapon of offence from the petitioner does not match with the empties allegedly recovered from the spot; that there is conflict between medical evidence and ocular evidence; that the star witness of the occurrence Mst. Meraj Bibi, who had also received injuries, was never produced before the trial Court; that the eye-witnesses had improved their statements in order to coordinate with the medical evidence; that there is old admitted enmity between the parties; that on the same set of evidence accused Gulzar and Riaz have been acquitted whereas the case of the petitioner is on better footings, therefore, he also deserves to be acquitted of the charge; that the impugned judgment is suffering from misreading and non-reading of evidence. Hence, leave to appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment.
4. Conversely, Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Lali, learned A.P.-G. Has opposed the contentions, advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned A.P.-G., appearing on behalf of the State, at considerable length, and perused the material available on record.
6. We have considered the evidence of Khadim Hussain (P.W.l), complainant, two injured witnesses namely Sarfraz (P.W.2) and Gulzar (P.W.3). They have supported the prosecution case and specifically stated that the petitioner Taj had participated in the occurrence and the fire made by the petitioner had hit the deceased on the chest near neck. The injured witnesses had also received numerous injuries during the occurrence and the doctor Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.16) supported the factum of injuries. Thus, their presence at the spot was established. The eye- witnesses were subject to cross-examination but nothing had come to doubt their credibility. Thus, their presence was natural as they sustained injuries along with deceased at the time of the incident. The trial Court has already extended life imprisonment to the petitioner and he is not entitled for any other relief. We are of the view that the impugned judgment of the learned High Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence. This court, normally, does not interfere with the findings of the courts below unless those are arbitrary, fanciful or perverse. No case for leave to appeal is made out.
7. For what has been stated above, we see no merit in this petition which is dismissed. Leave to appeal refused.