' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Ghulam Jaffar petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 7-12-1992 whereby Criminal Appeal No, 369/1987 filed by convicts Allah Dad and Abdur Rehman, respondents herein, was accepted and they were acquitted of the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution version was that on the morning of 15-8-1986 Ghulam Jaffar complainant, Ghulam Rasool deceased and Noor Khan P.W. Went to Jandanwala Town for purchasing articles of daily use. At about evening time they boarded a bus and came to Village Noora from where they started for Village Jafrianwala on foot. They had covered a distance of one furlong from Village Noora when Allah Dad and Abdur Rehman armed with guns came running towards them. Allah Dad gave a Lalkara that Ghulam Rasool would not be allowed to go alive and simultaneously fired at him hitting the upper part of his right leg as a result of which he fell to the ground. Then Abdur Rehman fired his gun hitting his left leg. In the meantime Allah Ditta brother. Of Ghulam Jaffar complainant also reached the spot and saw the occurrence. The assailants then left the spot firing in the air. Ghulam Rasool died at the spot.
' The motive alleged by the prosecution was that Allah Dad respondent suspected Ghulam Rasool deceased for having illicit relations with his wife.
3. During the spot inspection two empties Exh. P1 and Exh. P2 were taken into possession and made into sealed parcel. Allah Dad and Abdur Rehman respondents were arrested on 19-8-1986 and they led to the recovery of guns P4 and P7 respectively on 25-8-1986. According to the report of the Fire Arm Expert one empty matched with the gun of Allah Dad and the other with the gun of Abdur Rehman respondent.
4. In support of its case the prosecution examined two eye-witnesses namely Ghulam Jaffar and Noor Khan. It also relied on the evidence relating to motive and report of Fire Arm Expert.
5. The respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution's allegation against them.
6. After examining the evidence on the record the learned trial Judge convicted the respondents under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,10,000 each. Their co-accused Muhammad Ramzan charged for abetment was, however, acquitted. On appeal the conviction and sentence of the respondents was set aside and they were acquitted on benefit of doubt.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment of the trial Court is supported by reliable evidence but the finding of acquittal recorded by the High Court is based on surmises and conjectures and has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel in the light of evidence available on the record. The reasons which weighed with the learned Judge of the High Court for recording a finding of acquittal were firstly that "the deceased and the eye-witnesses resided at different places, quite sufficiently away from one and other, and there could be remoter possibility of their having gone to the town together for purchasing various commodities of daily use and their returning together on way to their respective houses" and secondly, the "absence of any article on or near the spot, to a greater extent, undermined this part of the prosecution case". He further observed that the empties were brought back from the Forensic Science Laboratory to the police station under objection when the guns allegedly recovered from the respondents were available there and "the possibility of the same having been fired from them could not be excluded". Having gone through the record we find that the above findings have the support of evidence. Both the eye-witnesses are very closely related to the deceased. The prosecution version was that after alighting from the bus at village Noora the deceased and the P.Ws. Started for their houses. In cross-examination Noor Khan P.W. Who was a resident of Village Noora stated that at the time of occurrence he and his companions were going to Jafrianwala. When further cross- examined he admitted that he had no house in Village Jafrianwala. He did not offer any explanation why after alighting from the bus instead of going to his own house he accompanied the complainant and the deceased. Ghulam Jaffar stated that he had to purchase household goods including cloth, tea, salt, sugar etc. Worth Rs,100/150 and he did purchase the goods from Jandanwala; Ghulam Rasool had to purchase cement and he actually purchased five bags and Noor Khan also purchased goods. There is nothing on the record to show that any article of the type was found lying at the spot after the occurrence when the investigating officer reached there.
The view taken by the learned Judge thus has the support of evidence and cannot be said to be fanciful. The mere fact that a different view of the evidence could also be taken would not constitute any ground for interference with the order of acquittal. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.