1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--The three respondents in this petition were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, for the murder of Mehr Din and for causing injuries to the prosecution witnesses. The trial Judge, by judgment dated 23-11-1981, convicted Mukhtar respondent under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death with fine of Rs,5,000 or in default two years R.I. Two third of the fine was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. Tufail and Mushtaq respondents were acquitted giving them the benefit of doubt.
2. ' Mukhtar filed appeal against his conviciton and sentence. Reference was also made to the High Court for confirmation of his death sentence. Complainant Mohammad Ali filed revision against the acquittal of Tufail and Mushtaq. All these matters were decided by the High Court by judgment dated 11-3-1986 whereby the Criminal Revision filed by the complainant was dismissed in limine; appeal of Mukhtar was accepted, his conviction and sentence was set aside and he was acquitted.
3. ' Muhammad Ali has now filed this petition for leave to appeal against all the accused those who had been acquitted by the trial Court as well as by the High Court.
4. ' We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner who submitted that the High Court did not at all refer to the evidence of Mst. Hanifan Bibi wife of Muhammad Ali complainant who appeared in defence and fully implicated the accused.
5. ' It was submitted that even the ocular account proved the case of the prosecution beyond doubt.
6. We think that there is good deal of force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Leave is granted accordingly to examine the ocular evidence with special reference to the testimony of Mst. Hanifan Bibi because we find that the learned High Court by means of the impugned judgment ignored the defence version observing:- "In defence the accused produced D.W.1 Peer Muhammad, D.W. 2 Saeed Ahmad, Registrar, District Registration Office, Gujranwala, D.W.3 Mst. Hanifan Bibi and D.W.4 Muhammad Dawood, Sub- Inspector, Finger Print Bureau, Lahore. The testimonies of these DWs have nothing to do with the circumstances of the under consideration case"
8. We accordingly grant leave to appeal. Non-bailable warrants of arrest to issue against the respondents.
9. ' Learned counsel for the respondents made a verbal request for bail. This we are not inclined to consider. He may, if he so wishes, make a proper bail petition at the appropriate time after arrest.