1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment dated 28-8-1979 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 1978 by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
2. The relevant facts are that Muhammad Siddique son of Allah Ditta, petitioner herein, suspected Shahadat deceased, belonging to the complainant party, of having illicit relations with his wife Mst.
3. Ferozan. This was naturally resented by Muhammad Siddique, who wanted to avenge the insult.
4. Shahadat and some members of the complainant party approached Muhammad Siddique and also took an oath on the Holy Qur'an that in future the deceased would treat Mst. Ferozan like his own sister and that he be forgiven for his past deeds. The accused party was satisfied by the oath but, in fact, they continued to harbour a grudge against Shahadat deceased. On the fateful evening, the deceased was surrounded by Siddique, Yara, Sardara (petitioners 1-3) and Muhammad Siddique son of Karam Ali acquitted accused when he was watering his crops. At that time, his father Shaman complainant was sitting by the side of the road closeby. The petitioners were armed with hatchets and were raising lalkaras that they would avenge their insult and initiated an attack on Shahadat deceased.
5. The petitioner Siddique gave hatchet blow on the chest of the deceased and he fell down on the ground. Then the three petitioners and the acquitted accused allegedly showered blows on him hitting the deceased simultaneously on his neck and chest. The complainant raised alarm which attracted Muhammad Ali, P. W. 6 and Bashir P. W. 7, who saw the occurrence. The deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
6. At the trial, the prosecution relied upon the ocular evidence given by Shaman P. W. 5, Muhammad Ali, P, W. 6 and Bashir P. W. 7, the motive and the recovery of blood-stained hatchets from the petitioners. The learned trial Judge accepted the prosecution case. However he acquitted Muhammad Siddique son of Karam Ali largely on the ground that no recovery was affected from him. The petitioners however, were convicted under section 302/34, P. P. C. But were given the lesser penalty of imprisonment for life.
7. The petitioners- filed an appeal before the Lahore High C,, art and a learned Judge thereof in a well-considered judgment where all the relevant facts were minutely appraised found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has attempted to criticized the appraisement of the evidence by the learned Courts below but after hearing him and perusing the available record we do not find any substance at al in the criticism leveled by him. We, on the other hand, are of the view that the appraisement of evidence by them does not suffer from any error either of law or principle of fact and, therefore, there is no reason for interference.
9. This petition must, therefore, fail and is dismissed hereby.