1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions from judgment, dated 24th March, 1980, of the Lahore High Court; whereby in a case of murder the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life of Dana, Ahmad and Gama petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 231 of 1980, and Bahadur, Manak, Ahmad and Amir petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 235 of 1980 were upheld. 3hera son of Ghulam who had been convicted by the trial Court was, however, acquitted. Earlier the trial Court had acquitted Shera son of Ahmad, Gama and Arif. The convict petitioners besides life imprisonment have been also sentenced to fine of Rs.2,000 each under section 302/149, P . P . C . , two years' R.I. Under section 148 , P . P . C . , 4 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000 each under section 307/149, P.P.C. They have also been ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2,000 each.
2. According to the prosecution the motive for the occurrence was that Samand deceased had beaten Dana petitioner 10/11 months prior to the occurrence in this case. A prosecution was launched against Samand for that occurrence, and he and his four brothers-in-law were facing trial in that case. It is stated that the accused persons came to the 'Behk' of Samand deceased and launched a concentrated attack on him as a result of which he died and four eye-witnesses received a large number of injuries. Karam Ali, Sardara, Falak Sher and Allah Yar, they are stated to be brothers-in-law of Samand. It appears that it was a retaliatory attack on the witnesses who were prosecuting the case against Dana and others. Dana, Gama and Bahadur petitioners were armed with guns while Ahmad son of Dana, Ahmad son of Mutalli, Amir and Manak were armed with Sotas. None of the accused is injured, while the complainant side including the deceased suffered more than 40 injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, have sought re-appraisal of the evidence on the ground that the eye-witnesses even though injured, were involved in the pending criminal case instituted at the instance of Samand, therefore, they should not have been relied upon; and that the case was registered against the petitioners after some deliberations.
4. It is true that the eye-witnesses had some interest in the prosecution of the petitioners. But as found by the Courts below they have been injured in the same occurrence. Their testimony is further supported by the facts and circumstances including the number of injuries and the number of the accused involved. Two Courts having believed the eye-witnesses regarding the petitioners, it is not a fit easel for re-appraisal of their evidence by this Court.
5. Regarding deliberations it is admitted by the learned counsel that the F.I.R. Keeping in view the relevant distance was not delayed. The petitioners' names appearing in the F.I.R., therefore, there is no danger of their having been falsely implicated due to any so-caller: deliberations.
6. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not consider it a fit case for re-appraisal of the evidence.
7. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused in both the petitions and they are dismissed.