1. DORAB PATEL, J.-Muhammad Akram was murdered on 25th April, 1977 and there is some controversy about the precise spot where he was killed. Be this as it may, according to the F. I. R., Muhammad Akram, deceased was hit on the head with a wooden bala by the first petitioner and on the back with a lathi by the third petitioner, whilst the second petitioner is alleged to have given a lathi blow to P. W. Muhammad Aslam. The petitioners were arrested in due course and had applied for bail, and this petition for leave has been filed against the Lahore High Court's order dismissing their application for bail.
2. The petitioners run a saw mill and according to learned counsel the occurrence took place inside the saw mill and not on the road as claimed by the prosecution, therefore, learned counsel's submission was that the party of deceased were the aggressors, because they had come to the saw mill of the petitioners despite the enmity between the parties. We are not impressed by this submission because even if the deceased and his party trespassed into the saw mill of the petitioners there could not be any justification for killing any one. But, learned counsel then pointed out that the first petitioner had inflicted a single blow on the deceased which unfortunately proved fatal, and the submission was that this blow had been inflicted in the exercise of the petitioner's right of self-defence. Learned counsel could not explain why the petitioners had used weapons unarmed against persons except to point out that the petitioners had also received injuries. The fact of these injuries has been referred in the F. I: R., according to which, the petitioners had been injured in the course of scuffle between them and the party of the deceased, and learned counsel submitted that these injuries to the petitioners supported their plea of self-defence, and his grievance was that these objection had not been examined by the High Court. But the objections relate to the appreciation of evidence, therefore, no exception can be taken to the order under appeal.
3. Learned counsel then submitted that no case had been made out under section 34, P. P. C. And he also relied on the delay in lodging the F. I. R. In the circumstances of the case, we would only observe that these objections will have to be decided' in the light of the evi--dence which is yet to be recorded, therefore, like the High Court w would refrain from examining them. The petition is without merit and is dismissed.