1. ' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Sardar Muhammad Siddique submits that his case for enrolment is pending before the Hon'ble Chief Justice as such he filed the application for special permission so that he may appear on behalf of the petitioner. For the reasons given in the application, permission is granted.
2. ' Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 2-12-1999, whereby the appeal of the petitioner filed by him against the judgment dated 26-3-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, in Sessions Case No.32/89, convicting the petitioner alongwith Sher Afzal and Rab Nawaz under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment, was dismissed.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Azad deceased who was employed in T.C.S., Islamabad, came to his house on 10-11-1988 in his village. He spent night in the house with his family. On the following day, i.e. 11-11-1988 at about 11-15 a.m. He left for his office in Islamabad, Mst.
4. Sardar Begum, his widow. And his two sons namely, Muhammad Mushtaq and Muhammad Arif accompanied him to bid him farewell. At about 11-30 a.m. They reached the land of Sher Ali and Shahid Mahmood. Mst. Sardar Bibi, Mushtaq and Arif P.Ws. Bade farewell to Azad there and he started for Islamabad. In the meantime, Rab Nawaz and Sher Afzal accused armed with guns came out all of a sudden and started firing at Muhammad Azad. The fire shots hit Muhammad Azad and he fell down and died. Thereafter accused ran away towards Sehial. Mushtaq, the complainant, left his younger brother, his mother and maternal uncle on the spot to guard the dead body and he himself left for the police station. On his way police official met him to whom he informed and made above statement. The Investigating Officer forwarded the statement to the police station through Abdul Aziz, Constable for registration of the case where F.I.R. Was recorded.
5. The motive as alleged in the F.I.R. Is that Sodagar, the grandfather of the accused, was murdered some time ago by Muhammad Azad who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial Court and Azad was on bail in appeal by the High Court in those days.
6. ' After finalization of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court. In the charge-sheet names of Sher Afzal and Rab N,ikva7 were placed by the police in column No.2. Thereafter, at the conclusion of trial the leaned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Sher Afzal, Rab Nawaz, and Muhammad Banaras under section 302/34 P.P.C. And sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 each, in default - of payment of fine, they shall have to further undergo for another period of two years. The judgment of the learned trial Court was assailed by the petitioner and other co-accused before the learned Lahore High Court. The learned High Court maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioner but allowed the appeal of Rab Nawaz and Sher Afzal and they were acquitted of the charge.
7. Mr. Sardar Muhammad Siddique Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the same set of evidence against all the accused. Rab Nawaz and Sher Afzal have been acquitted by the learned Lahore High Court whereas the conviction against the petitioner has been maintained and further the P.Ws. Are related inter se and hostile to the petitioner. That the evidence of P.Ws. Is not confidence-inspiring considering the enmity between the parties and the report of ballistic expert in respect of the empties allegedly recovered from the scene of occurrence having not been fired from the gun allegedly recovered from the petitioner and that for the safe administration of criminal justice, leave may be granted to the petitioner in this petition.
8. ' We have minutely considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner which require consideration. Leave is granted, inter alia, on the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to examine and reappraise the evidence to ensure safe administration of criminal justice.