ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioner was tried along with four others, inter alia, for an offence under section 307/149, P. P. C. The occurrence took place on 3-12-1977 at 8 a.m. The F. I. R. Was lodged on 4-12-1977 at 11 a.m. (i.e. After a delay of 27 hours). In the F. I. R. It was specifically mentioned that each of the accused was armed with a dang and inflicted injuries with them. The medical evidence, however, revealed that out of the 12 injuries on the person of Jehangir (P. W. 4), three had been caused with a sharp-edged weapon. The only recovery made during the investigation was of a dang from Allah Yar petitioner but it was not found stained with blood.
2. At the trial the prosecution relied, mainly on the ocular testimony of four eye-witnesses, and the recovery of the dang from Allah Yar petitioner (which was not stained with blood) could not be used to corroborate the ocular testimony.
The trial Court convicted all the accused and sentenced them to 4 years' R. I with a fine of Rs. 1,000 each or in default to further R. I. Of 6 months each.
On appeal the High Court acquitted tire four co-accused but maintained the conviction of Allah Yar petitioner.
Hence the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge-in-Chamber erred in maintaining petitioner's conviction on the evidence of the same four eye-witnesses whose testimony he himself rejected qua his four co-accused, in the absence of any independent corroboratory evidence to support the same qua him and that the reasons given by the learned Judge for distinguishing the petitioner's case are not very convincing.
4. The learned High Court Judge has given the reasons for distinguish--ing the petitioner's case from that of the other four co-accused in paragraph (6) of the judgment. After going through the said paragraph, we feel that the case does require further consideration.
Leave is, therefore, granted for the said purpose.