1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The first six respondents herein were sent up for trial with two others on charges under sec--tions 302/149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murders of two co- villagers named Khan and Yaqub on the evening of the 21st of September 1906, in the area of village Qasmana Kharl within Dipalpur Police Station, District Sahiwal. The trial Court acquitted two but convicted -the above-mentioned respondents on both the charge,. They were sentenced to transportation for life and a title of It Rs.500 each on the charge under section 302/149. P.P.C. They were also sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprison--ment each in respect of the charge under section 148 of the' Pakistan Penal Code.
2. On appeal, however, even these respondents were acquitted. A brother of the deceased now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.
3. The first information of this incident was lodged by another brother of the deceased at about 11-55 p. m. It is admitted that the parties were on inimical terms for quite sometime. Security proceedings under sections 107 and 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code were also pending between the parties at the time of the incident. The enmity actually started some ten years back when the father of respondent Sardara was murdered and for this the deceased Khan, his brother Basara, their father Ghara, and one Khuda Yar were challaned. Only Khuda Yar was convicted in that case and the rest were acquitted. Both sides were actually bound down to keep the peace some 5 or 6 months before this incident but even after that they clashed over the construction of a khal.
4. The prosecution case with regard to the present incident, however, is that Muhammad Iqbal (P. W.
5. 11) sent a message at about digerwela to the deceased and his brothers to the effect that he would bring about a compromise between the two parties if they would come to his house situated in another village named Shah Yakka, a mile or a mile and a half away. The two deceased accompanied by their cousin, the son-in-law of their cousin and their sister's husband went to the house of Iqbal but the respondents did not turn up.
6. On their way back home, when they were at a short distance from the village, the accused- respondents, who were lying in ambush in a cotton field, fell upon them and beat them up.
7. The informant Basara had not accompanied the deceased to the house of Iqbal but had gone to the well to fetch milk. He teas returning from the well with the milk when he heard the alarm raised by the other companions of his deceased brothers. When he reached near them, he was told that his brothers, Khan and Yaqub, were being beaten by the accused and that he should not go near them because he too would be killed He claims that he thereupon stood there and saw the eight accuses, who were armed with Bangs, barchhis and kulharis, causing injuries to the deceased, The case against the respondents were sought to be establish--ed by the ocular testimony of four witnesses but as they were all very close relations of the deceased their evidence was sought to be corroborated by recoveries of blood-stained weapons of offence. One of the witnesses, Mohammad Sharif (P. W. 8), also claimed to have received injuries during the course of this incident. The injuries found on him were only four abrasions, two on the left arm and two on the left thigh, which were all simple and appeared to have been caused by a blunt weapon.
8. The defence was a complete denial of both participation in the incident and of the recoveries.
9. The trial Court accepted the prosecution evidence but acquitted Khan and Fazil because no sharp- edged injury was found on the deceased although according to the witnesses they were armed with a hatchet and ballam respectively. Again the fact that Khan. Had not been named as an assailant by Basara P. W. Either in the F. I..-R. Or, in his evidence, although he was asked to name the assailants twice, created a serious doubt about his participation.
10. The High Court on Mother hand found it difficult to rely upon the oral testimony of the eye- witnesses not only because of their close relationship with the deceased but also because their statements were themselves conflicting, contradictory and in her--entry improbable. The High Court indeed came to conclusion that the entire picture and story given by the informant Basara was unbelievable as it was highly improbable that he would just at this critical point of time be returning with milk from the well. If he was really there then he too would not have been spared by the accused.
11. The presence of Muhammad Sharif (P. W., 8) was also doubted because he had not been named by Basara in the first information report. The injuries found on him could also be self --suffered.
12. The time of the incident, given by the prosecution, was held to be incorrect. The incident, according to the High Court, could not have taken 'place before 7-30 p. m. When darkness must have set in and visibility had become further reduced due to a severe sand storm.
13. Learned counsel, appearing in support of this petition, has endeavoured to contend that the acquittal was not justified; butt having examined the evidence of some of the material witnesses with his assistance, we have come to the conclusion that the criticisms made by the High Court of the prosecution evidence are not without justification. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the acquittal was either perverse or arbitrary. The evidence is by no means convincing nor is it free from the infirmities rightly pointed out by the High Court. The acquittal was, therefore, based upon cogent grounds.
14. The State does not also support this petition.
15. There is, in our view, no valid ground for interference in this case. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.