1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The respondents in this case were sent up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Hazara in respect of a charge under section 302/34, P. P. C. For the murder of one Irfan son of Zaman with fire-arms.
2. The incident was alleged to have occurred at 4-30 p.m., on the 19th of Match 1968 when the deceased was returning to his village from Khanpur, where he owned a provision store. It is alleged that when the deceased reached a place called Narian he was attacked by the respondents who were lying in ambush in the fields. They shot him to death in the fields of one Mohammad Ayub.
3. The motive alleged for the crime was that some time before the occurrence the father of the respondent Mohammad Ramzan had taken a second wife with the active assistance of the deceased and it was for this reason that the said accused was, at the behest of his mother, who was still alive, taking revenge in consort with his paternal first cousin.
4. The State went in appeal to the High Court under section 417, Cr. P. C. The High Court after carefully examining the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the acquittal was fully justified as the prosecution itself had given two conflicting versions of the occurrence, one before the Investigating Officer and another at the trial. Evidently, the version given at the trial was an attempt to bring the evidence into line with the medical evidence. The medical evidence also falsified the ocular testimony as regards the time of the incident.
5. The presence of semi-digested food in the stomach completely belied the story that the deceased was returning from the shop to his house at the time he was killed. It rather supported the defence theory that he must have gone out after having his meals and then was killed by some unknown person in the field of Muhammad Ayub. There were also other contradic--tions in the ocular testimony with regard to the direction the respondents took after the incident. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Courts below were wrong in taking the view that this was an incident which had not been witnessed by any one. The deceased had been murdered by an unknown assailant in the dark hours of the night. We cannot say that the conclusions arrived at by the High Court are either perverse or unreasonable. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere.
6. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.