' This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 14-9-1986 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sheikhupura whereby he acquitted the respondents of the charges under sections 379 and 302/34/109, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution version was that on 31-5-1983 at 1-00 p.m. Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Khan respondents, who had muffled their faces, confronted Niamat Ali deceased in the area of village Mandiali. Muhammad Khan respondc:it raised a lalkara upon which Muhammad Aslam fired his rifle at the deceased as a result of which he died at the spot. Muhammad Khan removed the revolver of the deceased and then both the accused ran away from the spot. A dispute between Muhammad Ali (father of the deceased) and Allah Rakha (father of Muhammad Aslam respondent) over a wall was stated to be the motive for the occurrence.
3. At the trial Ahmad Ali complainant and Nazar Hussain P.W.9 supported the prosecution version of the occurrence.
4. After examining the evidence on the record the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that there was a possibility of mistaken identification both the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses closely related to the deceased and inimical towards the appellant; the evidence regarding recoveries and conspiracy was not confidence-inspiring, therefore, un-corroborated testimony of interested witnesses was not sufficient to warrant the conviction.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R was lodged very promptly wherein the respondents have been named as murderers/conspirators. Therefore, there was no possibility of false implication. He further submits that the licensed revolver of the deceased was recovered from Muhammad Khan respondent and this recovery furnished substantial corroboration against him.
6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel in the light of evidence available on the record. Enmity between the parties is an admitted fact. Both the alleged eye-witnesses stated that Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Khan respondents had muffled up their faces and they had identified them by their voices. #TBS The State filed Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 1985 against Shaukat #TBE ' As regards the alleged recovery of the licensed revolver o the deceased from Muhammad Khan accused, it may be mentioned the Ahmed Ali P.W. Stated that Muhammad Khan had taken away the sal revolver but his counterpart Nazar Hussain did not utter a word about it. Both the eye- witnesses being inimical, their evidence need corroboration which it is lacking in this case. After going through the evidence with the help of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the findings of the learned trial Judge have the support of evidence. In the circumstances no ground for interference with the impugned order is made out. This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.