1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 15 December, 1985 whereby Muhammad Din respondent was acquitted.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that Muhammad Din respondent alongwith Muhammad Amin was tried for offence under section 302/323/34, P.P.C. And the trial Court convicted them under the aforesaid sections awarding sentence of life imprisonment plus fine under section 302/34, P.P.C. To each, and one year's R.I. Under section 323/34, P.P.C. To each. On appeal the High Court maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to Muhammad Amin but acquitted Muhammad Din respondent.
3. Hence the present petition.
4. ' The deceased in this case is Barkat Ali and injured person is Muhammad Sadiq complainant- petitioner nephew of the deceased. The occurrence took place on 21 April, 1981 within Lahore district.
5. F.I.R. Was lodged on the following day. No recovery was effected from Muhammad Din respondent but from Muhammad Amin was recovered human blood-stained Datar. There are two eyewitnesses of the occurrence namely Muhammad Sadiq complainant-petitioner and Muhammad Ibrahim younger brother of the deceased. According to the medical evidence Muhammad Sadiq complainant-petitioner had seven injuries on his person caused with blunt weapon and so far as Muhammad Din respondent is concerned he had ten injuries on his person out of which five injuries were caused with sharp-edged weapon and the remaining with blunt weapon. He had sustained three grievous injuries. The deceased in the instant case had nine injuries in the form of incised wounds and contusions. The motive was that Muhammad Amin had blocked the drain of dirty water which lay between the Havelis of himself and the deceased. This led to the exchange of hot words and fist blows between them. According to the prosecution version when the deceased alongwith eye-witnesses was returning from his fields Muhammad Amin armed with Datar and Muhammad Din respondent armed with hatchet attacked them to teach them a lesson. So far as the part ascribed to Muhammad Din respondent is concerned the High Court has disbelieved the ocular testimony which remains uncorroborated. He had stated that he was attacked in his house by members of the complainant party. His wife Mst. Naziran was also injured. The eye-witnesses have not explained her injuries. Anyway as a result a case of murderous assault on Muhammad Din respondent was registered on the day of present occurrence namely 21st April, 1981 at the instance of Abdur Rashid, among others involving three sons of Barkat Ali deceased. Thus it is evident that Muhammad Din respondent did not suffer injuries in the same incident in which the deceased and Muhammad Sadiq complainant-petitioner were injured. It was on this reasoning that the High Court held that both the eye-witnesses had made incorrect statements regarding the circumstances in which Muhammad Din respondent and his wife received injuries. Learned counsel attempted to argue before us that if the eye- witnesses had been believed in respect of the part ascribed to Muhammad Amin, they should have also been relied upon in respect of the part ascribed to Muhammad Din respondent. But this argument has no force because the ocular testimony in respect of Muhammad Amin finds corroboration through the recovery of human blood-stained Datar in his case.
6. ' After hearing the learned counsel in our view no interference is called for in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The petition is therefore dismissed.