' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Leave to appeal is sought by the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 5-5-1997 delivered by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioners assailing their conviction under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that petitioners Muhammad Saleem and Ghulam Mustafa were tried alongwith Muhammd Shafi, Muhammad Younas and Azhar by an Additional Sessions Judge at Sialkot on a charge under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. Vide judgment dated 18-5-1992 the learned trial Judge acquitted Muhammad Shafi and Muhmmad Younas and found the petitioners guilty under section 302/34, P.P.C. Accordingly the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs,50,000 or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For another term of 3 years each. It was also directed that in the event of realization of fine, the same shall be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. However, Azhar was found guilty only on the charge under section 323, P.P.C. And thus he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. For a term of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For one year.
3. The prosecution case in brief as narrated by the first informant in the F.I.R. Is that on 14-12-1989 at about 6.00 p.m. The first informant proceeded to the house of Muhammad Saleem to purchase of a bag of bran (Chaukar) for his cattle. The bag was purchased for Rs,63 and the first informant paid Rs,60 to him and promised to pay the balance of Rs,3 on the next day. Muhammad Saleem refused to give the credit of Rs,3 and insisted that the entire amount of Rs,63, should be paid. The first informant Muhammad Tufail considering the unreasonable attitude of Muhammad Saleem returned the, bag and received back his Rs,60 and was proceeding to his house when Muhammad Saleem abused him and told him not to come to his shop for any purchase. The first informant also retaliated by abusing Muhammad Saleem and proceeded towards his house and when he reached in the street near his house, Muhammad Saleem alongwith his father Muhammad Shafi, Ghulam Mustafa, Muhammad Younas and Azhar all armed with Sotas chased the first informant.
Muhammad Saleem then raised a Lalkara that he had come to teach him a lesson for abusing him. On hearing the noise, Sakhawat Hussain son of the complainant also reached there and thus exchange of abuses took -place on both sides. Ghulam Mustafa and Muhammad Shafi inflicted Sota blows on the head of Sakhawat Hussain, who fell down. The first informant intervened whereupon Azhar and Younas also inflicted Sota blows on the body of the first informant. On hearing the hue and cry Muhammad Bashir, Safarash Hussain and many others intervened to the rescue of the complainant side. Muhammad Saleem again exhorted that they had come to teach him a lesson for abusing.
4. At the very outset it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the trial as well as the appellate Courts fell into error by ignoring the defence version, which if juxtaposed with the prosecution case would react upon the same. It was contended that in fact the complainant party was the aggressor inasmuch as the petitioners were passing by the house of the complainant when they were attacked by him and his son and they had acted in their self- defence. In support of their version, Muhammad Munir D.W.1 entered the witness-box and stated that he was injured by the complainant side. Surprisingly Muhammad Munir was examined in the hospital, but he never appeared before the police although he claimed to have been admitted in the hospital. The police also visited the hospital, but even then Muhammad Munir did not attempt to contact the police to apprise them of the correct version. The medical officer has also given somewhat ambivalent opinion about the injuries received by Muhammad Munir. In the light of these circumstances, the learned Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that the defence version had no substance in it and the same was, therefore, rejected. We have carefully examined this aspect of the case and we are also of the view that the learned Judge of the High Court as well as the trial Court rightly concluded that the defence version was an afterthought.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that the eye-witness account in this case was inimical and, therefore, the same should be rejected. No doubt Safarash Hussain, one of the eye-witnesses, is related, but mere relationship is no ground to discard such testimony. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that Safarash Hussain was inimical towards the accused side. The F.I.R. In this case was lodged promptly by the father of the deceased and we are not prepared to believe that he would substitute the real culprit and would allow the murderer of his son to go scot-free. The statement of Muhammad Tufail, who was also injured, was recorded in the hospital and there was no serious background of enmity between the parties whereby it can be inferred that an attempt had been made to implicate the petitioners falsely.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the judgment impugned before us has no flaw and the evidence on record has been correctly appreciated in consonance with the principles laid down by this Court to govern the same. Resultantly, this petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
' Leave to .