1. JAVID IQBAL, J.--Leave to appeal is being sought against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 14th June, 1982 in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 1980.
2. The facts are that Muhammad Sharif and Mohammad Ashraf petitioners alongwith Arshad co- accused were originally tried under section 302/34, PPC for the murder of Mohammad Sharif son of Allah Dad and vide judgment dated 21st January, 1980 of the trial Court all of them were convicted under section 302/34, PPC and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine. In appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore a learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 14th June 1982 accepted the appeal of Arshad co-accused and acquitted him but rejected the appeal of the present petitioners. It may be noted here that out of the present petitioners Mohammad Sharif is the father of Mohammad Ashraf. He was also father of Arshad acquitted co-accused.
3. Mohammad Sharif petitioner has died in jail. The petitioners and the acquitted co-accused were stated to be armed with Sotas. The date and time of occurrence is 25th August, 1977 at 2 p.m. In Killa No.25 Square No.21 within the area of Chak No.257/RB Police Station Dijkot, Faisalabad. The FIR was lodged at 9-15 p.m. On the same day by Abdul Majid PW.3 brother of deceased Mohammad Sharif son of Allah Dad. The petitioners and the acquitted co-accused were arrested on 27th August, 1977. At the instance of Mohammad Sharif and Mohammad Ashraf petitioners were recovered Sotas which were stained with human blood. Nothing was recovered from the acquitted co-accused. Mohammad Sharif deceased in the instant case had three injuries on his person caused with blunt weapon out of which 2 proved fatal and one was simple. The prosecution has produced two eye-witnesses of the occurrence, i.e. Abdul Majid PW.3 brother of the deceased and Mohammad Akram PW.4 not related but only joint cultivator. The motive for the crime was that there existed a land dispute between the parties but the immediate cause of occurrence was about the turn of water. The prosecution case is that on the fateful day while the turn of water of the deceased was in operation the accused party already armed with Sotas appeared on the spot and wanted to cut the water to their land. The deceased asserted that his turn of water was still to go. On his resistance the accused party is stated to have attacked him by administering Sota blows on his head etc. The occurrence was witnessed by the two eye-witnesses mentioned above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore had relied on the eye-witnesses as natural witnesses of the occurrence but he had not examined the testimony of the eye-witnesses as to whether Abdul Majid PW could witness the infliction of injuries from a considerable distance.
5. We have gone through the statement of Abdul Majid PW at page 29 of the printed paper book. He states in the cross-examination that he saw the accused party from a distance of 6 Kanals when they were giving Sota blows to the deceased. He heard alarm from the spot at a distance of 11 Killa and thus started running towards the spot. It is evident that the occurrence took place in an open field in the month of September at 2 p.m. And a distance of 6 Kanals was such that if a victim was being attacked by assailants with Sotas an eye-witness could see it from that distance. We have examined the record and the impugned judgment with the assistance of the learned counsel but in our considered view no case of re-appraisal of evidence is made out. As a result this petition is dismissed.