1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Wali Muhammad son of Abu Bakar Siddiq, Rajput, resident of Tibbi Jai Singh Mauza Darshan District Sahiwal lodged report pertaining to the murder of Shah Sawar which took place on 12-2-1981 at 5.30 p.m. In Killa No,9 of Square 49 in Mauza Darshan. On the basis of the report eleven persons were hauled up. All of them were tried by the Sessions Judge, Sahiwal.
2. ' The trial Judge, by judgment, dated 2-1-1983, acquitted seven persons, namely, Shah Rasool, Mahboob, Maqsood, Ishaq, Abbas, Shafia and Noor.
3. ' The remaining four - Muhammad Shafi son of Tayyab, Riaz alias Mango son of Shafi, Gamoon son of Allah Jawaya and Abdul Ghaffar son of Shaman were convicted under sections 302 read with 34, P.P.C.
4. ' Muhammad Shall was sentenced to death and the rest three to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs,20,000 each or in default three years' R.I. Each. The convicts were also directed to pay Rs,10,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.
5. ' They appealed to the Lahore High Court. Reference was also made for confirmation of death sentence of Muhammad Shafi. Both the matters were decided by the High Court by judgment, dated 7-10-1986. Appeal was accepted. All of them were accordingly acquitted.
6. ' The net result was that seven accused had been acquitted by the trial Court and four by the High Court.
7. ' Wali Muhammad felt aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court and now seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment.
8. ' Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition contended that the High Court erred in law in acquitting respondents 1 to 4 against whom the case had been proved to the hilt by ocular evidence duly supported by motive and the medical evidence.
9. ' In this connection he drew our attention to the eye-witnesses' account given by Wali Muhammad and Shah Rasul.
10. ' He also contended that in case there was any flaw in the prosecution evidence that was because of dishonest investigation conducted by the Investigation officer and for that reason the respondents were not entitled to its benefit. The acquittal by the High Court as such was not justified by law.
11. ' Before examining the aforesaid contention we would like to mention that the motive for the alleged incident was that on 9-2-1981 Muhammad Shafi had a quarrel with Shah Sawar deceased and his real brother Allah Yar. Both the brothers gave shoe beating to Muhammad Shafi who was a Lambardar of the village. This offended the accused party who wanted to take revenge of this insult.
12. ' The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of force. The High Court field both the witnesses to be the chance witnesses. They were also interested and inimical because of the strained relations with the accused party due to criminal litigation. The High Court observed as follows:-- "...Thus, there is abundance of evidence on the record to show that the eye-witnesses were inimically disposed towards the accused persons. In that view of the matter, their evidence would require independent corroboration from an unimpeachable source but the same is not available in this case. There was no recovery of any incriminating article from any of the appellants. It is interesting to note that during investigation by D.S.P., Pakpattan, only two accused, namely, Shafia and Abbas, were found involved and recoveries of blood-stained hatchets and blood-stained clothes were effected from them but they were acquitted and their acquittal has not been challenged either by the complainant or the State. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, it would be unsafe to place reliance on the interested ocular testimony which was not relied upon against the other accused."
13. After going through the entire evidence, the High Court found that it did not inspire confidence and as no reliable independent corroborative testimony was forthcoming to support the ocular version the High Court acquitted the respondents.
14. ' We don't find anything wrong with the judgment of the High Court and this petition is accordingly dismissed.