1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Sikandar Hayat son of Umar Daraz, resident of Mahram Sial, District Jhang seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 14-12-1987, whereby Bahadur and Muhammad Murad, respondents 1 & 2, were acquitted of the charge of double murder.
2. ' The occurrence in which Muhammad Hayat and Mehmood Akhtar were alleged to have been killed took place on 19-1-1984 at 12.30 noon, in the area of Adda Haveli Bahadur Shah which falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Shorkot. Report was lodged by Sikandar Hayat petitioner. It was recorded by S.H.O. Muhammad Salim.
3. ' Bahadur and Muhammad Murad respondents were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang who by judgment, dated 22-4-1985 found them guilty under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to death on each count.
4. ' Prosecution case is that the petitioner alongwith Mehmood Akhtar and Muhammad Hayat, his cousins, boarded a bus on 19-1-1984 from Adda Mehram Shah for Haven Bahadar Shah. The respondents also got into the same bus. When they reached near Adda Haveli Bahadar Shah, the time was 1 p.m. Sikandar Hayat and the two deceased got down and so did the respondents. The respondents shouted that they would teach a lesson for the quarrel at Mela Lohi.Bahadur had a Chhuri. He inflicted Chhuri blows in the abdomen of Muhammad Hayat. Mehmood Akhtar tried to intervene. Murad who was armed with knife gave him two knife blows in his chest and abdomen.
5. The injured fell down. They were given number of blows by the two respondents.
6. ' The motive was that 4/5 days prior to the occurrence the deceased had abused and gave fist blows to the respondents in Mela Lohi. The respondents threatened the deceased with dire consequences.
7. ' The ocular account was given by Sikandar Hayat petitioner and Sarang Khan. This was the important evidence. The rest consisted of the recovery and the medico-legal as well as post- mortem reports of the deceased.
8. ' Kamir Khan and Haji Abdul Aziz appeared in defence.
9. ' The High Court examined the entire evidence. The first point noticed was delay in lodging the report which had not been explained. It further found material lacunas in the prosecution case. For instance according to the petitioner it was he who accompanied the injured to the hospital, got them admitted and got them medically examined but according to the doctor it was one Muhammad Arif who brought the deceased for medical examination.
10. ' In addition to that the High Court was not convinced about the presence of Sikandar Hayat and that he had not witnessed the occurrence.
11. ' Similarly, the High Court did not believe the other witness as his evidence did not inspire confidence. The High Court further observed that there were other persons who had witnessed the occurrence. Those would have been natural witnesses being the residents of the locality yet they were neither examined at the trial nor even named in the F.I.R.
12. ' Evidence pertaining to the recovery was rejected because Sikandar Hayat had been disbelieved and he was the recovery witness. Ghulam Akbar who attested the recovery of dagger P.3 from Murad respondent was also disbelieved on the ground that he did not belong to the village from where the alleged recovery was made.
13. In nutshell the High Court disbelieved the entire prosecution evidence. All that the learned counsel wanted us to do was to re-appraise the evidence and to come to a different conclusion. This is not possible unless there is some material illegality or even irregularity going to the root of the case and that interest of justice demands that the evidence be reconsidered.
14. ' We don't think it is a fit case for leave to appeal. Dismissed.