' Instant petition for special leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal, dated 12-3-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that initially the case was registered with police at the instance of Muhammad Saleem. The case as investigated by the Investigating Agency. However, the complainant was not satisfied with the said investigation and consequently filed a di complaint against the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 3. As a result of inquiry into the said complaint, the matter was consolidated with the police case. The proceedings were conducted in the complaint case. A charge under section 302/34, P.P.C., was framed against the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 3, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3.In -order to bring home guilt to the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 3, the complainant examined P.W.1 Mst. Sabiran Bibi, Muhammad Akram P.W.2, Riaz Hussain P.W.3, Muhammad Zahid P.W.4 and recorded his own statement as P. W.5. He, thereafter, gave up the remaining P.Ws. Being unnecessary. The learned Trial Court then recorded statements of prosecution witnesses as C.W.1 to C.W.32.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 3 denied the prosecution version and recorded the statement of D.W.1 in their defence.
5. After going through the evidence , brought on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 3.
6. Being aggrieved of order of acquittal, the complainant/petitioner has filed the instant petition for special leave to appeal.
7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
8. A perusal of the F.I.R., clearly shows that it was not the nominated F.I.R. And as a result of investigation, the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 3 were initially arrayed as accused but later on they were substituted by three other persons, namely, Khalid alias Khala, Jan Masih and Haider Ali.
9. The main case of the complainant rests upon the statements of P.W.3 Riaz Hussain and P.W.4 Muhammad Zahid, who are stated to have disclosed to the complainant that actually the accused/respondent were responsible for the murder of his brother. A perusal of their statements clearly shows that they made the said disclosure after about 5/6 months of the occurrence. No explanation whatsoever has been given by them for not disclosing the said fact either at the time of registration of case or even prior to the arrest of the accused/respondents. The entire case rests upon their statements which have been thoroughly discussed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order. No misreading or non-reading of the evidence has been highlighted by learned counsel for the petitioner while addressing the arguments. The impugned order does not suffer from misreading, non-reading or any illegality, as such, there is no force in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.