' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13-7-2001 of a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Appeal No,794 of 1993.
2. The petitioner was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang for the murder of one Sajid Hussain and vide judgment dated 22-12-1993 was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life as Ta'zir with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs,20,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased within the contemplation of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or suffer 6 months' S.I. In default.
3. The F.I.R. Discloses that on 22-2-1993 at about 2-00 p.m. While the complainant Nawazish Ali alongwith his son Sajid Hussain deceased and other family members was present in his house there was a nock at the door. Responding to the knock the complainant and his son Sajid Hussain went towards the door. When Sajid Hussain opened the door of the 'Dheohri' the petitioner raising a Lalkara that he would teach him a lesson for demanding back money and belabouring him fired a shot from a revolver at Sajid Hussain as a result of which he lost MI life. Motive for the occurrence was that the deceased had advanced a sum of Rs,25,000 as loan to the petitioner and about 4/5 days prior to the occurrence had asked the, petitioner to pay back the loan.
4. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court mainly on the ground that the ocular evidence having been furnished by natural witnesses was confidence-inspiring, it was amply corroborated by the medical evidence and apart from that it was a case of single accused, therefore, the possibility of substitution stood excluded.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution had singularly failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt as the eye-witnesses were trumped up and the prosecution evidence was not corroborated by any independent evidence.
6. The contentions are misconceived. The ocular evidence has indeed been furnished by natural witnesses whose testimony is corroborated by the medical evidence. There is neither any background of enmity between the parties nor the complainant had any motive to implicate the petitioner falsely in a murder case. The complainant, who is father of the deceased, has charged only the petition and has not thrown the net wide. It is by now well-settled that in case of a single accused substitution is a rare phenomenon. It does not stand to reason that the complainant had charged an innocent person and spared the real culprit. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and leave declined.