1. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: --Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 19-6-1989 whereby it declined to set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitting the respondents.
2. The facts, in brief, as narrated by the petitioner are that Muhammad Ibrahim his deceased brother used to run a cloth shop at Dhoke Mistrian, Tanch Bhatta, Rawalpindi. One Mst. Badaman Begum purchased cloth from his deceased brother valuing Rs.1500. Gul Zaman respondent stood guarantee for the payment. Muhammad Ibrahim deceased on 18-8-1987 taking the amount of Rs.15,000 (?) from the petitioner, accompanied Gul Zaman respondent to the house of Abdul Rehman respondent in Village Thalla Syedan. On 19-8-1987, Chan Pervaiz, nephew of the petitioner told him that his father was waiting for Ibrahim deceased in the village. The petitioner went to the house of Gul Zaman respondent but he could not find out the deceased there. Consequently, he went to the house of Abdul Rehman. He came to know that Muhammad Ibrahim was done to death in the house of Abdul Rehman respondent. The petitioner, went to police station to lodge the report but the police did not listen to him. The petitioner was informed by Ghulam Sarwar P.W. That he had witnessed that all the respondents had committed the murder of Muhammad Ibrahim deceased.
2. The First Information Report was lodged and also a private complaint against the respondents under section 302/34, P.P.C. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that the complainant had miserably failed to establish his case against the respondents. The evidence of Ghulam Sarwar, the only alleged witness was discarded. The defence version was accepted by the trial Court. The dead body was recovered from the house of the accused and the deceased was not wearing Shalwar and shoes.
3. The learned High Court observed that Ghulam Sarwar P.W. Was an untrustworthy and unbelievable witness. He was a resident of the place other than the place of occurrence. He kept quiet for a month and then appeared before the police. There is concurrent finding of fact by the two Courts.
4. The appraisal of evidence has been made in its true perspective. The statement of the only alleged eye-witness Ghulam Sarwar has been discarded for sound reasons. According to this witness, he had seen the incident but he did not make any report about this incident to anybody. He did not even inform the complainant about the alleged occurrence. He was residing at a distance of two miles from the place of incident. The defence version that the deceased had criminally assaulted Mst. Badaman Begum was accepted. This is not a case for re-appraisal of evidence. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.