1. ' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record of the case with his assistance we have observed that in support of its case against respondent No, 1 the prosecution had produced two eyewitnesses before the trial court and they were Faqeer Muhammad complainant (PW1) and Muhammad Arshad (PW2) who were the father and a brother of Iftikhar Ahmed deceased respectively. The said eyewitnesses had claimed that they were with Iftikhar Ahmed deceased at the time of the present occurrence and immediately upon the deceased having been injured he was shifted by them to the Services Hospital, Lahore. The record of the case had, however, given a big lie to the said eye-witnesses in that respect inasmuch as it had been established before the trial court that after having been injured Iftikhar Ahmed deceased had initially been shifted to a private hospital called Surriya Azeem Hospital and from that hospital he was transferred to the Services Hospital, Lahore. The record further confirms that Iftikhar Ahmed deceased had been brought to the Services Hospital in an injured condition not by the above mentioned eye-witnesses but by the officials of the Rescue 1122. Two witnesses belonging to Rescue 1122 had appeared before the trial court in defence of respondent No, 1 and they had categorically stated before the trial court that when Iftikhar Ahmed decease was shifted from Surriya Azeem Hospital to the Services Hospital he was not accompanied by any attendant or relative. The record also shows that it was the administration of the Services Hospital, Lahore which had informed the local police about arrival of Iftikhar Ahmad deceased there in an injured condition. The Post-mortem Examination Reporting pertaining to the deadbody of Iftikhar Ahmed deceased clearly establishes that the postmortem examination had taken place after about 24 to 30 hours of the death of the deceased which factor clearly indicated that time had been consumed by the local police and the complainant party in cooking up a story for the prosecution and in procuring and planting eyewitnesses. For all these and other reasons the High Court had concluded that the eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution before the trial court were actually not present with the deceased at the time of occurrence and, thus, the ocular account furnished by them was ruled out of consideration. After ruling out of the ocular account the other circumstances of the case providing corroboration or support to the ocular account had automatically collapsed. In these circumstances the High Court had extended the benefit of doubt to respondent No, 1 and had acquitted him of the charge. Upon our own independent evaluation of the evidence we have not been able to take any legitimate exception to the said conclusion reached by the High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.