1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 14 December, 1987 whereby criminal revision of the petitioner was dismissed and Abdul Fateh respondent was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted,his appeal having been accepted.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the respondent was tried. For an offence under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of Muhammad Sadiq son of the present petitioner and vide judgment of the trial Court he was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine. On appeal of the convict the High Court accepted his appeal and set aside his conviction and sentence and acquitted him. Hence the present petition.
3. ' The occurrence took place at night between 1 and 2 November 1984 within the area of Police Station Sadar, Raiwind. The F.I.R. Was lodged by the petitioner at 2-10 a.m. On 2 November, 1984.
4. From the spot were picked up two crime empties and at the instance of the respondent was recovered a .12 bore gun with which it is alleged that one crime empty matched. There are three eyewitnesses of the occurrence. They are the petitioner being father of the deceased, Abdul Ghaffar brother of the deceased and one Suleman. The deceased had received firearm injuries 19 in number. According to the doctor's opinion these were not the result of a single shot but two or more shots. The motive advanced was that about 4/5 years before the present occurrence the petitioner had taken a garden on lease along with a field of sweet potatoes from the respondent.
5. Abdul Ghaffar and the deceased both sons of the petitioner used to sleep in the night there in order to guard the garden. It is alleged that some months before the present occurrence the respondent had plucked some Jamans from the garden without paying any price whereupon the deceased objected that the respondent should pay him the price. On this the respondent got annoyed and said to the deceased that he should vacate the garden and give him possession of the same. At noon time of the day of occurrence the wife and children of the respondent came to pluck the fruit and again the deceased did not allow it. There was exchange of abuses between them, and it is stated that the respondent hurled threats at the complainant party that since his wife had been insulted they should give up the possession of the garden and go away. The position of the deceased was that he would not vacate the garden until the lease period expired and the respondent had threatened him with dire consequences. On the night of the occurrence while the deceased was sleeping there in order to guard their field, the respondent came there armed with a gun and fired a shot at the deceased whose cry was heard by the other witnesses who were sitting chatting with one another at some distance. The High Court had acquitted the respondent for the reason that the motive was trivial and could not be proved, that the eye-witnesses were interested and they had not seen the occurrence and that the recovery of gun had been disbelieved and therefore matching of the same with the crime empty was of no avail.
6. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner before us has attempted to argue that the respondent had the motive to kill the deceased as he had altercated with him and the ocular testimony was disinterested and should have been believed. Likewise according to him the recovery evidence was reliable and should have not been disbelieved. We have partially examined the record and the impugned judgment with the assistance of learned counsel but in our view the High Court has properly appraised the evidence on record before arriving at the conclusion of giving the benefit of doubt and acquitting the respondent. Therefore in our opinion no case is made out for interference.
7. The petition is accordingly dismissed.