1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The 4 respondents were charged under section 302/307/34, P. P. C. For causing the death of one, Muhammad Nawaz, and making a murderous assault on Mst. Fatima and her infant daughter, Mst. Mariam. They were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum. The State filed an appeal against their acquittal in the High Court, which has been dismissed in limine.
2. This petition for special leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents has been brought by Ishfaq Ahmad, a son of deceased Muhammad Nawaz.
3. According to the prosecution case, Mst. Bano, mother of the respondents,. Muhammad Hussain and Riaz Hussain, eloped with Muhammad Banaras, a son of Muhammad Nawaz, deceased.
4. Thereafter, she filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, which was fixed for hearing for the 10th of May 1969, on which date the present occurrence took place. It was alleged that Ishfaq Ahmad, petitioner, along with his father, Muhammad Nawaz, deceased and his sister, Mst. Fatima, were going to village Murid for purchasing cloth. At sun-rise time, when they reached near bridge Soaj, all the respondents, of whom Nazar Hussain was armed with a spear and the rest with sticks, emerged from a nearby reed plantation and attacked the deceased. It was stated that Ishfaq Ahmad and Mst. Fatima, who were accompanying the deceased, had tried to rescue him but they did not go near him as the accused held out a threat that they would also be killed. It is significant to note that in, the First Information Report, it was not stated that Mst. Fatima and her infant daughter, Mariam, had also sustained injuries. It was stated in the First Information Report that the deceased, Muhammad Nawaz, had caused injuries to the accused persons in self-defence. Nazar Hussain, respondent, was also found seriously injured. A case under section 307, P. P. C. Was registered against one, Muhammad Banaras, a son of Muhammad N4waz, deceased, on the alleged statement of Nazar Hussain that he had been injured by him. Nazar Hussain repudiated this allegation at the trial, which resulted in the discharge of Muhammad Banaras. In his statement in defence in the present trial, he admitted having caused the injury to the deceased after the latter had attacked him.
5. After a careful analysis of the whole case, both the Courts below have found that the defence story, in the context of the circumstances of the case, rings more true, and that, in any case, the prosecution has failed to establish a case against the respondents The view adopted by the High Court, in concurrence, with that of the learned trial Judge, does not suffer from any infirmity to call for an interference by this Court. This petition is dismissed.