' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 9-6-1997, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Cr.P. No,232-L/1997.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that Sultan Shah complainant lodged an FIR to the effect that Ghulam Abbas alias Azhar Hussain (deceased) was his nephew. On 27-8-1991 Sultan Shah and one Shahid Hussain came to Ghulam Abbas in connection with some private work. At night they slept with Ghulam Abbas deceased in his Behk. Sultan Shah and Shahid Hussain got up early in the morning for Fajjar prayers. They saw Shamsul Hassan, Mehboob Shah armed with. 12 bore guns, Mehtab Ali, petitioner herein, with. 12 bore carbine, Waris empty-handed, Arif armed with hatchet alongwith Yousuf with spear and Sarwar armed with carbine, present near the cot of Ghulam Abbas deceased. According to them, Mehtab Ali petitioner fired from his carbine at Ghulam Abbas.
Mst. Sakhi, sister of Ghulam Abbas, who was present nearly, had witnessed the occurrence. Ghulam Abbas expired at the spot. The accused decamped while raising Lalkaras.
3. The motive for the occurrence, as stated at page 13 of the paper book, was that about eight months before the occurrence Mst. Abida, sister-in-law of Shamsul Hassan, was abducted and he suspected that Ghulam Abbas deceased had a hand in her abduction.
4. Mehtab Ali petitioner alongwith other co-accused was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, who vide his judgment, dated 23-11-1992, convicted the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C.
And sentenced him to death plus a fine of Rs,30,000, or in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 years' R.I. It was further directed that the amount of fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The rest of the accused, namely, Shamsul Hassan, Mehboob Shah, Waris, Arif.
Sarwar and Yousuf were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge.
5. Mehtab Ali petitioner filed an appeal in the Lahore High Court, against his conviction and sentence, which was partly accepted, converting his death sentence into imprisonment for life.
Hence, this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:--
(i) that the learned High Court had failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective;
(ii) that the question of general public importance is involved in this case, which requires an authoritative pronouncement;
(iii) that the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested and chance witnesses and closely related with each other;
(iv) that the ocular account is also contradictory with the medical evidence so far as the nature of injuries is concerned; and
(v) that according to the prosecution, the petitioner was armed with a carbine and fired from a close range, yet there was neither any burning mark nor the bullets were recovered from the wound, that the nature of wound indicates that rifle shot was fired and not the carbine.
6. Leave is, inter alia, granted to consider whether the prosecution evidence which was disbelieved qua majority of the accused could be relied upon against the petitioner.