' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, Actg. C.J.-- Anwar Gill petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the acquittal of Muhammad Jehangir respondent, of the charge under section 302, P.P.C. By the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide its judgment, dated 5-2-1979.
2. The facts, briefly, are that Muhammad Jehangir respondent was tried for having murdered a young Christian girl named Mst. Shahnaz Tanvir on 4-10-1975, by causing her as many as 15 knife injuries on various parts of her body, in a field outside the Sialkot City.
' The prosecution relied on 3 eye-witnesses in support of its case, namely Muhammad Khalil (P.W.7), Anwar Gill brother of the deceased (P.W.8) and Sadiq Masih (P.W.12) (brother of Sultan P.W.
Who is brother-in-law of the deceased). The accused was arrested two days later. At the time of his arrest he is alleged to have been carrying the blood-stained knife (P.8) with him which was taken into possession.
' The motive of the offence is stated to be that the accused misbehaved with the deceased, of which she complained to her brother later, when she took up a job with a Travel Agency, the accused/ respondent objected to it. The learned Trial Court disbelieved the motive as well as the testimony of Anwar Gill (P.W.8) and Sadiq Masih (P.W.12), but relied on the testimony of Muhammad Khalil (Khalil Akbar) P.W.7 and convicted the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. For which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,5,000.
' The respondent filed an appeal before the High Court against his conviction which was accepted by it, and the respondent was acquitted.
' Hence the present petition.
3. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at length and gone through the impugned judgment as well as relevant portions of the record. The High Court has rightly disbelieved the third eye-witness namely Muhammad Khalil P.W.7 and also the recovery of the knife (P.8). As such there was no evidence on which the respondent's conviction could be maintained. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any flaw in the impugned judgment nor was he able to show that the learned High Court had either misread or ignored any portion of the prosecution evidence.
' The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no force.