1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.-According to the prosecution Mst. Naseem Akhtar the wife of Muhammad Anwar succeeded to 30 beghas of land and a house on her father's demise. However, this property was in the possession of Sher Khan, who refused to deliver it. Thereupon Muhammad Anwar instituted a civil suit against him, which was pending in the civil Court. This being the motive, it was alleged that the petitioner, an hour before the incident, threatened Muhammad Anwar to withdraw the suit on pain of dire consequences. Thereafter, at about 4-30 p. m. On 21st December, 1979, while Muhammad Alchmat, his brothers Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Anwar were in the house of Yasin to fetch fodder for the goats, the petitioner alongwith Sher Khan and Fateh Muhammad, all armed with guns, and Ali Muhammad, Saresa and Nadeem carrying hatchets, came there. Thereafter Muhammad Raees, Sher Khan and Fateh Khan climbed on the roof of Muhammad Yasin, a prosecution witness, and from there gave a lalkara that they would teach them a lesson and saying so he fired his gun on Muhammad Ashraf hitting him on his left shoulder.
2. The others fired shots in the air. Muhammad Ashraf had 3 inlet wounds and one exit wound. They were tried by a Section 30 Magistrate, Jhelum, and except for the petitioner, who was held to have fired the shot, the others were acquitted as no overt act was established against them. He was, accordingly, convicted under section 307, P. P. C. And sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs, 1,000 (one thousand) or in default to undergo R. I. For six months.
3. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Jhelum, upheld his conviction by judgment dated 25th of June, 1981.
4. The revision in the High Court also failed, as the High Court found no weakness in the evidence to hold otherwise.
5. ' It is now urged before us that the case of the petitioner was no different from those acquitted as all of them were attributed the part of having fired at Muhammad Ashraf. Accordingly, it was a case of merely picking up one of the assailants without there being any corroboration. This contention is without substance as not only in the F. I. R. But also at the trial the part of firing the shot was attributed to the petitioner, and if, at all, there was an exaggeration that all of them had fired that would not render his active participation doubtful. He was again attributed the role of lalkara, and there is also the evidence that he had threatened to teach the complainant party a lesson if they did not withdraw the suit. These features were also amongst others to single him out as an assailant who had fired the effective shot. Here I may point out that others have not been acquitted on the premise of their being falsely implicated, but one the short ground that no active role was attributed to them, and, accordingly they were given the benefit of doubt, The Courts below have appreciated the evidence and we see no justification to reappraise the evidence as there is no violation of any principle of appraisal of evidence. The question was one of belief or disbelief of the witnesses. The petition is without any merit, which is dismissed.