' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Petitioner and two other co-accused were put on trial for offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. It is alleged by the prosecution that petitioner fired from his shot gun at Zardad Khan, who became injured and died. Eye-witnesses claimed to have identified them in the light of lantern, which was burning in the courtyard. Motive alleged is that petitioner purchased land, which was in possession of deceased, who was unwilling to part with the possession.
Prosecution examined two eye-witnesses P.W.9 Shaukat Ali, complainant, who is son of deceased and P.W. 12 Mst. Suba Jan, who is wife of deceased. Trial Court acquitted petitioner and his co- accused on the grounds inter alia that it was a dark night incident in which identification of assailants seen while running away from the spot after the incident as claimed by eye-witnesses was doubtful. There was delay in the filing of F.I.R. Ocular evidence was contradicted by medical evidence, which indicated entry wound on the back of the deceased. No crime empty was recovered from the spot to connect licenced gun of petitioner with crime.
2. Against the judgment of the acquittal by the Trial Court no acquittal appeal was filed by the State but complainant filed Revision Application which is accepted by the High Court with direction of remand of the case for re-trial against the petitioner only. It is done so on the ground that complicity of petitioner is established by direct evidence corroborated by the doctor and recovery of gun from the petitioner with positive finding from fire-arm expert. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that High Court should not have interfered in revision against the judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court for the reason that the Trial Court has properly evaluated the evidence and has given very valid and sound reasons for reaching the conclusion. In support reliance is placed on the cases reported in 1992 SCMR page 96 and at page 489 and 1993 SCMR page 305. Leave is granted to re-appraise the evidence in order to find out whether interference by the High Court in revision against acquittal by the Trial Court was justified or not and was in accord with guidelines laid down in the case-law mentioned above. Proceedings in the Trial Court are stayed.