1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 381 of 1987 and 4 of 1988 are directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan dated 20th October, 1987 whereby Sawan `co-accused was acquitted and appeal of Fair Muhammad petitioner in Criminal Petition No, 381 of 1987 was dismissed confirming his conviction and death sentence. By the same judgment criminal revision against the acquittal of Gaman, Bashir, Hayat and Khuda Bakhsh co- accused filed by Kaloo petitioner in Criminal Petition No, 4 of 1988 was also dismissed. We have pointed out to learned counsel that Criminal Petition No, 4 of 1988 is 2 days barred by time and no cogent reason has been advanced explaining the delay. It is therefore dismissed as such. So far as Criminial Petition No 381 of 1987 is concerned the facts arc that Fiaz Muhammad petitioner along with Sawan, Gaman Bashir, Hayat and Khuda Bakhsh co-accused was tried for the double murder of Karim Bakhsh and Lal, and vide judgment of the trial Court Gaman, Bahsir, Ilayat and Khuda Bakhsh were acquitted whereas the petitioner and Sawan co-accused were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. On two counts each and on both counts both of them were sentenced to death plus fine. On appeal of the convicts learned Judges of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench gave the benefit of doubt and acquitted Sawan co-accused but dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner (Faiz Muhammad accused) confirming his conviction and sentence of death.
2. Now Faiz Muhammad petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court.
3. ' As stated above two persons were murdered, namely Karim Bakhsh and Lal at 10 a.m. On 1 February, 1981 within the area of Police Station Sadar, Dera Ghazi Khan. The FIR was lodged on the same day at 12-30 noon by Kaloo. No recovery was made from the spot or from any other member of the accused party except Faiz Muhammad petitioner on whose instance a gun was recovered alongwith two empty cartridges on 14th February 1981. This recovery was of no corroborative value.
4. The prosecution had produced two eye-witnesses, both closely related to the deceased in this case. The eye-witnesses are Kaloo who is brother of Lal deceased and cousin of Karim Bakhsh deceased. Karim Bakhsh deceased was also married to the sister of Kaloo and Lal deceased whereas Lal deceased was married to the sister of Karim Bakhsh deceased. The other eyewitness is Muhammad Siddique whose son is married to the daughter of Kaloo. According to the medical evidence Karim Bakhsh deceased had firearm injuries on the front of left thigh with the corresponding wound on the back of thigh. The death had resulted due to damage of femoral vessel. Lal deceased had also a firearm injury on the head which had damaged his skull. The motive is that some years before the present occurrence father of Faiz Muhammad petitioner had been murdered. Seven persons including Karim Bakhsh and Lal deceased as well as Kaloo and Mithoo PWs were tried for this murder, but they were acquitted seven days before the present occurrence. It is in this background that the two deceased had been attacked by the accused party. According to the prosecution version the two deceased ran towards the north when Faiz Muhammad petitioner fired at Lal deceased hitting him whereas Sawan co-accused fired at Karim Bakhsh deceased also hitting him. Thereafter all the members of the accused party ran away.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before us that in this case there was no other Testimony except uncorroborated account of interested eyewitnesses who have not been relied upon in respect of the four co-accused acquitted by the trial Court. Again this interested and uncorroborated ocular testimony was not relied upon by the High Court in respect of Sawan co- accused. However the conviction of the present petitioner and sentence had been maintained merely because from him a gun had been recovered which was not in any way connected with the commission of crime. Learned counsel also submitted that the sentence of the petitioner has been commuted to life imprisonment under the Notification of the Government of Pakistan issued in December 1988, but on the basis of his above arguments case was made out on merits for the acquittal of the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel we grant leave in this case to consider as to whether the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner in the circumstances of the case by the High Court were in accordance with the well established principles of safe administration of criminal justice.