' The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was registered against the respondents with Police Station Mochh, Tehsil and District Mianwali, vide F.I.R.
Dated 25-7-1985. The case was lodged by Alam Khan for the murder of his son Jehan Khan. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, vide his judgment dated 18-2-1988, gave the benefit of doubt to Khalid Khan, respondent No, 2, and acquitted him of the charge, but Abdul Rauf was found guilty and sentenced under section 302, P.P.C. To life imprisonment. The petitioner challenges the judgment of the trial Court as far as the acquittal of Khalid Khan accused is concerned, and also prays for enhancement of sentence of Rauf Khan, respondent.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the eye- witnesses are natural as the occurrence took place in front of their house. Contends that the trial Court believed the evidence qua Abdul Rauf; therefore, there was no justification to disbelieve the witnesses with regard to Khalid Khan, respondent. Urges that in any case the reasons given for lesser penalty to Abdul Rauf, respondent, are not in conformity with the law.
3. I have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the record. The trial Court had given the benefit of doubt to Khalid Khan solely on the ground that no overt act whatsoever was attributed to him. Not even a proverbial Lalkara A was attributed to him. His presence at the spot, which is a thoroughfare, without any overt act, would not constitute any criminal liability. Therefore, I hold that the learned trial Court has rightly given him the benefit of doubt.
' As far as Abdul Rauf, respondent, is concerned, he is alleged to have caused a single blow with the wrong side of Vaholi which resulted in the death of Jehan Khan. The motive is that earlier, Jehan Khan deceased had forbidden Abdul Rauf from standing in the lane in front of his house, for which he took exception.Since there'was no previous enmity between the parties, the respondent Abdul Rauf got enraged as he felt insulted and caused the single blow, therefore, I feel that no exception to sentence of imprisonment for life can be taken.
' For what has been discussed above, I find no justification in interfering with the findings of the learned trial Court. Resultantly, the revision fails which is accordingly, dismissed.