1. JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4th February 1981 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore. It has been filed by Muhammad Sher complainant---petitioner for enhancement of sentence awarded to Fateh Khan respondent and against acquittal of his co-accused, namely, Nawaz Murid and Ahmad Sher. All the four of them were tried under section 302/34 as well as section 307/34 PPC by the Additional Sessions Judge Sargodha who vide his judgment dated 6th February 1979 acquitted Nawaz but convicted the remaining three under section 302/34 PPC and sentence each of them to life imprisonment plus fine as well as under section 323/34 PPC and sentenced each of them to six months' R.I. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal before the High Court, a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore vide his judgment dated 4th February 1981 acquitted Murid and Ahmad Sher respondents but maintained the conviction as well as sentence awarded to Fateh Khan respondent.
2. The deceased in this case was Khalid and the injured person was Muhammad Sher complainant- petitioner. The occurrence took place shortly before sunset time on 14th July 1977 over railway lines in the area of village Okhli Mohala Tehsil and District Khushab. All the respondents were arrested on 15th July 1977. At the instance of Fateh Khan respondent was recovered human blood-stained hatchet. From Nawaz respondent was recovered pistol and from Ahmad Sher respondent was recovered Sota (not blood-stained) According to the medical evidence the deceased had sustained 15 injuries out of which two were grievous. Two injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon and the rest with blunt weapon. So far as Mohammad Sher complainant---petitioner is concerned he had nine injuries on his person out of which three were grievous and six were simple in nature. Fateh Khan respondent had also sustained injuries three in number out of which one was grievous and two simple. There was two eye-witnesses of the occurrence, namely. Mohammad Sher complainant-petitioner nephew of the deceased and Fateh Sher. The motive for the crime is that six years before the present occurrence Fateh Khan respondent had killed his wife Mst. Zulekha because he suspected that she was carrying on illicit relationship with the deceased. In the trial of that case the deceased had appeared as PW against Fateh Khan respondent and thereafter had left the village. The prosecution case is that on the fateful day the deceased had gone to the village of Fateh Khan respondent in order to attend some marriage. After attending the marriage he alongwith the eye-witnesses was standing at the bus-stand waiting for the bus when the respondents armed with deadly weapons attacked the deceased and Muhammad Sher complainant-petitioner. After inflicting the injuries they ran away. Nawaz respondent had been acquitted of the charge by the trial Court because there was no fire-arm injury on the person of the deceased or Mohammad Sher complainant-petitioner. There was allegation against him only of ineffective firing. Pistol was recovered from him but there was no crime empty picked up from the spot. Since there was no corroboration of the ocular testimony of the part ascribed to him the trial Court acquitted him. Murid and Ahmad Sher were acquitted by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore for the reason that nothing was recovered from Murid respondent whereas Sota recovered from Ahmad Sher was not blood-stained. None of them had received injuries although according to the prosecution story stones were thrown at the time of the occurrence. Fateh Khan respondent was only convicted because he had been injured in the course of the occurrence. He had admitted even participation in the occurrence, human blood-stained hatchet had been recovered from him and thus the ocular testimony in his case was corroborated by the recovery evidence and supported by the motive version and medical evidence.
3. Learned counsel for Mohammad Sher complainant-petitioner argued that it was a deliberate pre- planned murder and therefore the sentence awarded to Fateh Khan respondent should be enhanced. It was next submitted that since the co-accused had accompanied Fateh Khan respondent and the eye-witnesses were independent with no motive to falsely implicate, there was no justification for their acquittal.
4. We have heard learned counsel. Fateh Khan respondent had apparently previously killed his wife because he suspected that the deceased was carrying on with her. Thereafter, the deceased had left the village but on the day of occurrence, after six years, he came back to the village to attend a wedding ceremony and on seeing him Fateh Khan respondent was suddenly reminded of the past.
5. In the peculiar circumstances of this case therefore his conviction and the sentence awarded to him were quite proper. So far as the other respondents were concerned the ocular testimony was uncorroborated in respect of the parts ascribed to them.