SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The respondents in this petition were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge at Sialkot of the offences under sections 302, 307, 324 and 323, read with section 149, and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of Yunis Khan, making a murder assault on Ilyas Khan, causing injuries with sharp-edged and blunt weapons to Muhammad Sharif, Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Khan and committing rioting. They were sentenced to imprisonment for life on the charge under section 302 and to serve various terms of imprisonment on other counts, in addition to fines. Together with them four other persons were also tried on the same charges but they were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On appeals by the respondents, the High Court set aside their convictions and sentences and acquitted them of all the charges. Rahim Khan, a member of the complainant party who lodged the F. I. R. Has preferred this petition to seek leave to appeal from the Judgment of the High Court.
2. Both parties resided in village Mandi Khan of Tehsil Shakargarh. There was serious enmity between them and they had been involving each other in criminal cases. The occurrences took place on 31-10-1976, at 10 a.m., at the cane-crusher of Ghulam Rasool where according to the version of the prosecution, the deceased, Ilyas Khan, Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Khan and Ghulam Rasool had gathered to crush sugar-cane: The respondents armed with dangs, hatchet, spears and chhuris came there and launched an attack upon the members of the complainant party. As a result Yunis Khan deceased died at the spot while Ilyas Khan, Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Khan and Ghulam Rasool received numerous injuries. Rahim Khan, a former policeman, who had allegedly witnessed the occurrence went to Police Station Shakargarh where the District Superintendent of Police was present and made a report before ASI Yaqoob Khan. On the basis of this statement a case was registered at Police Station Shah Gharib on the same day.
3. The respondents pleaded not guilty to the charges against them and denied that they were responsible for the attack on the members of the complainant party. Some of the respondents produced witnesses in their defence.
4. The case of the prosecution against the respondents rested mainly on the ocular testimony provided by Rahim Khan (PW-8), Ghulam Rasool (PW-10), Muhammad Khan (PW-11), Muhammad Sharif (PW-13) and Ahmad Khan (PW-14). Of these, Rahim Khan and Ahmad Khan were not injured during the course of occurrence. The trial Court expressed doubts with regard to the presence of Rahim Khan on the spot at the relevant time. It relied upon the testimony of the other eye- witnesses and held that so far as the respondents were concerned it was corroborated by the medical evidence and motive. Accordingly, it convicted and sentenced the respondents in the manner already indicated. As regard the other four accused who were tried alongwith the respondents it gave them the benefit of doubt and acquitted them.
5. On appeal by the respondents, the High Court held that on account of the old outstanding enmity between the parties none of the eye-witnesses could be described as independent and disinterested; that there was a deliberate delay in lodging the F.I.R. That there was conscious effort on the part of the complainant party to involve in the case as many members of the opposite party as was possible; and that, in the circumstances it was not a case where ocular account could be relied upon with regard to the identity and number of the assailants without independent corroboration. Since no independent corroboration of this nature was available, it acquitted the respondents.
6. The only point argued in support of this petition is that the High Court was not right in rejecting the testimony of Ahmad Khan (PW-14) who was an independent and disinterested witness. It is difficult to agree with the learned counsel. Ahmad Khan (PW-14) admitted that he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of an offence under section 325, Pakistan Penal Code, at the instance of a brother of one of the respondents. He was a witness against one of the respondents in an earlier criminal case. It may be mentioned that all the respondents are closely related inter se. In the circumstances the High Court was justified in not regarding him as an independent or disinterested witness.
7. No other point was raised on behalf of the petitioner. This petition is accordingly dismissed.