' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-The respondent, Ali, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge at Vehari under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of three persons, namely, Muazzam, Mst. Zuhran and Allah Wassayi and was sentenced to death and fine. On appeal and reference, the High Court set aside his conviction and sentence and acquitted him. The complainant has filed this petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
2. The complainant and Muazzam deceased were brothers. They and their families lived in the same haveli in Basti Nazimabad of village Ghafoor Wah in Tehsil Vchari. The complainant had five daughters and three sons. Two of his sons were married to the sisters of the respondent. The respondent was married to one of the daughters of the complainant. It was the case of the prosecution that the respondent wanted the complainant to give his youngest daughter Mst.
Mukhtar Bibi in marriage to his brother. The complainant did not accept the proposal for the reason that the respondent had developed illicit intimacy with his other daughter Mst. Zahooran who was married to Mohammad Hussain who also lived with him in Basti Nazimabad.
3. The occurrence took place in the early hours of 1-8-1982 in the haveli of the complainant. At the relevant time, Muazzam deceased was sleeping outside the haveli, while the complainant, Mst.
Zahooran, Mst. Allah Wassayi, Mst. Nooran, Mst. Mukhtar Bibi and Muhammad Hussain were sleeping in the courtyard. Mst. Zahooran and the other children of the family were lying inside a room. It was alleged by the prosecution that at about 2-30 or 3-00 a.m. The respondent came there with a hatchet. He first struck Muazzam with his hatchet and killed him. He then entered the courtyard, attacked Mst. Zahooran and Allah Wassayi and killed them also. The occurrence was reported at Police Station Luddan which was 8 miles away at 6-50 a.m., by the complainant. The respondent was arrested by the police on 1-8-1982. From his person a blood-stained Chaddar was recovered. He also produced a blood-stained hatchet.
4. At the trial, the respondent pleaded not guilty and denied that he was responsible for killing Muazzam, Mst. Zahooran and Allah Wassayi. He did not produce any evidence in defence.
5. The prosecution examined 4 witnesses, namely, the complainant (P.W.7), Mst. Mukhtaran (P.W.8), Muhammad Hussain (P.W.9) and Mst. Nooran (P.W.10). It also relied upon the recovery evidence.
The learned trial Court accepted the ocular testimony as well as the recovery evidence and convicted the respondent. However, the High Court disbelieved the recovery evidence and took the view that the occular testimony was not worthy of credit.
6. In support of this petition, it is contended that the ocular evidence was provided by natural witnesses who had no reason to falsely implicate the respondent who was married to one of the daughters of the complainant. It was a case of a single accused and the F.I.R.
Was lodged without any delay. The High Court was thus not justified in disbelieving at least the ocular testimony.
7. The contentions raised in support of this petition need examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
Non-bailable warrant for the arrest of the respondent returnable to the Assistant Commissioner, Vchari, should be issued.