1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11th December, 1985 whereby respondents Nos. 1 to 6, except Muhammad Amin, were acquitted. Muhammad Amin had already been acquitted by the trial Court. This petition is against acquittal of the rest of them by the High Court.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that respondents Nos. 1 to 6 were tried for offences under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. But vide judgment of the trial Court Muhammad Amin was acquitted whereas the other respondents were convicted under sections 302/149, P.P.C. And each of them was sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine. Each of them was further convicted under section 148, P.P.C. And sentenced to one year's R.I. On appeal as stated above they had been given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The deceased in this case is Muhammad Tufail. The occurrence took place at 7-30 a.m.
3. On 5th October, 1971 within District Kasur. F.I.R. Was lodged by father of the deceased, the present petitioner on the same day a few hours later. From Muhammad Shafi and Abdullah were recovered blood-stained Sotas and from Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Iqbal were recovered blood- stained hatchets whereas from Muhammad Asghar was recovered a gun alongwith the licence.
4. The eye-witnesses are four namely the present petitioner father of the deceased, Shafi Muhammad uncle of the deceased and Muhammad Ali son-in-law of the petitioner; Mansha the fourth eye-witness not related but was won over. The deceased had seven lacerated injuries, seven contusions and one abrasion and one cut wound except which all the other injuries were caused with blunt weapon. The motive for crime was that 8/9 years before the present occurrence father of Muhammad Iqbal respondent was murdered and the deceased was challaned but later on he was acquitted. Muhammad Iqbal respondent was a young boy at that time and used to proclaim that he would take revenge. The other motive is that four years prior to the present occurrence the petitioner purchased some land from paternal aunt of Muhammad Iqbal respondent and that the deceased used to cultivate the said land. This also grieved the accused party. The prosecution version is that the accused party attacked the deceased while he was coming back to his house from the fields. They caused him injuries with their respective weapons which led to his death while the occurrence was witnessed by the eye-witnesses. The High Court had proceeded to acquit the respondents for numerous reasons. Firstly, there is discrepancy in the dates of the recoveries as stated by the attesting witnesses and the police officer and consequently the recoveries had not been relied upon as having been genuinely effected from the members of the accused party.
5. Secondly, the ocular testimony was found interested and in conflict with the medical evidence. The so-called independent witness namely Mansha in his cross-examination had excluded the participation of the respondents other than Muhammad Iqbal in the occurrence. The eye- witnesses have also been disbelieved because their conduct was held to be unnatural and possibility of their being not present could not be excluded. Even the motive evidence was not considered of any value so as to advance the prosecution case. It was for these reasons that the respondents were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
6. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that the eye-witnesses should have been believed as their testimony was corroborated by the recovery evidence and was further supported by the motive version as well as the medical evidence, but in the light of the findings of the High Court and the record this argument is without any substance. In that view of the matter it is not a fit case for interference. As a result this petition is dismissed.