1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioner, along with four others, namely, Mooso, Jaffar, Ditto and Tooh, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, for offences under sec--tions 148, 302/149 and 307/149, P. P. C., for committing murder of deceased Abdul Rashid and for attempt to murder complainant Mohammad Siddiq. The learned trial Judge convicted all the five accused before him, sentencing Mooso to death while the re--maining four accused including the petitioner were sentenced to transportation for life each under section 302/149, P. P. C. They were also sentenced to two years' R.
1. Each under section 148, P. P. C., and to R. I. For four years each and a fine of Rs.500 each or in default six months' R. I. More under section 307/149, P. P. C. The petitioner and the other four accused filed an appeal in the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi and the appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court held that the oral evidence of interested witnesses could not be relied upon and the possibility of false implication also could not be excluded. Accordingly, the learned Judges of the High Court acquitted four out of the five accused but dismis--sed the appeal of the petitioner and maintained all his convictions and sentences by their Judgment dated the 8th June 1971. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment.
2. The offence is alleged to have been committed on the 15th September 1967, near a disused canal.
3. The First Information Report was lodged at b-00 a.m. At Daulatpur Police Station, on the 15th September 1967, by Muhammad Siddiq, the father of the deceased Abdul Rashid. He alleged that he, along with his deceased son and two marots, namely, Abdul Karim and Ali Hassan, left their village on the day of occurrence for giving evi--dence in the case of Ghulam Kadir Dahri before the Deputy-- Commissioner, Nawabshah. The four were going on three horses. He and his son were on separate horses and his two marots were riding on one horse Muhammad Siddiq was followed by his, deceased son with the two riders on the third horse behind them. After they hardly covered a call's distance from their village, the five accused, namely, Mooso, Jafar, Talib, Djito and Tooh sud-- denly emerged from sur bushes, armed with guns and hatchet. The petitioner Tafb was the first to fire with n gun at Muhammad Siddiq but the shot missed him. Thereupon, accused Mooso fired his gun at Abdul Rashid as a result of which he fell ,down from the horse. In the meantime, Muhammad Slddiq pulled the reins of his horse 9 Abdul Karim and Ali Hasan also did like-wise. From there they saw Jaffar, Ditto and Tooh giving hatchet blows to the fallen Abdul Rashid. Their cries of 'murder' 'murder' attracted P. W. Muhammad Bachal, Muhammad and others: In the meantime, the culprits book to their heels.
4. The prosecution evidence is supported by the ocular evi--dence of P.Ws. Muhammad Siddiq, Abdul Karim and Ali Hassan corroborated by Muhammad Bachal P. W. The opinion of the Ballistic Expert is that the crime empty recovered from the wardat appeared to have been fired from the gun secured from the petitioner.
5. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ocular evidence in this case supports the allegation made against the petitioner. His contention is that the prosecution witnesses are interested and they should not have been relied upon for the purpose of convicting the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel is without force. As the learned Judges off the High Court have taken precautionary measures to see that the petitioner is not roped innocently, they looked for the corrobora--tion of the ocular evidence and they found support in the recovery of one empty which matched with the gun recovered from the petitioner. In our opinion, in these circumstances, the con--viction of the petitioner is based on proper appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution. There is no force in the petition The petition is dismissed.