1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 5th November, 1986 whereby appeal of respondents Inayat and Saif was accepted and they were acquittad. The petition is against their acquittal.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that both the respondents brothers inter se were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge Gujranwala for the murder of Akbar Ali and vide judgment of the trial Court both of them were convicted under section 302/34 P.P.C. And each of them was sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine. The High Court as stated above accepted their appeal and acquitted them. Hence the present petition.
3. ' The deceased in this case is Akbar Ali. The occurrence took place at 3 p.m. On 16th May, 1982 within the area of village Thatha Gajju, District Gujranwala. F I R was lodged by the present petitioner, brother of the deceased on the following day i.e, 17th May, 1982. Three eye-witnesses of the occurrence had been produced. These are the present petitioner, Ghulam Ali maternal-first cousin and brother-in-law of the deceased, and Umer Hayat whose brother is married to the daughter of the brother of the deceased.There were recoveries of blood-stained hatchets from both the respondents but these had been disbelieved. According to the medical evidence the deceased had seven injuries on his person in the form of swellings and incised wounds. The injuries had been caused with sharp-edged as well as blunt weapons. According to the prosecution the motive was that the deceased had refused to give the hand of his daughter in marriage to Saif respondent upon the demand of Inayat respondent. The finding of the High Court in respect of this motive is that it was doubtful because Saif respondent had been married 4/5 years before the present occurrence and had children from his wife. According to the prosecution a few days before the occurrence one Nur Muhammad a relative of both the sides had died. The petitioner along with the deceased went to the village on the fateful day to attend the 7th day rites of Nur Muhammad deceased. The other eye-witnesses had also gone there to participate in the ceremony. All of them were sitting when the two respondents came there armed with hatchets and thereafter both of them gave hatchet blows from the right and wrong sides to the deceased who was taken to the hospital in an injured condition but the deceased died in the hospital on 18th May, 1982. The High Court granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondents, firstly because the motive was disbelieved as being doubtful; secondly since recoveries had not been considered reliable because the only attesting witness of the same from the public was the son of the deceased who did not belong to the village of recovery and furthermore whose statement was contradictory to that of the investigating officer; thirdly there was unexplained delay in lodging of the F.I.R.; fourthly the deceased was a person of questionable character who had been indulging in immoral activities; and fifthly the ocular testimony did not inspire any confidence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that the findings of the High Court respecting the above points were not supported by the record. But there is no force in his arguments. The High Court after appraisal of evidence was correct in giving benefit of doubt to the respondents and acquitting them. Therefore there is no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.