' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Muhammad Aslam, petitioner who is complainant of this case seeks leave to appeal to call in question the legality of judgment dated 7-6-2001 of the Lahore High Court by which on acceptance of appeal filed by respondent No,1 convict, he has been acquitted of the charge of murder of Muhammad Javed, the brother of the present petitioner-complainant.
2. Respondent No,1, Muhammad Rashid was tried under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of Muhammad Javed, the brother of the present petitioner.
3. The trial Court after recording evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the case against him beyond reasonable shadow of doubt, therefore, he was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And awarded death sentence through judgment dated 6- 2-1996 against which appeal filed by the respondent has been accepted through the impugned judgment, dated 7-6-2001 and murder reference answered in the negative against which leave is sought.
4. The learned Judges of the High Court while dealing with the evidence of the prosecution have recorded the following findings as contained in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment which are reproduced below in extenso:-- "14. The incident in this case took place at about mid-day on 4-6-1993 and Criminal case Exh.PD/1 was registered at Police Station City Pattoki at 5-15 p.m. On the statement made by Muhammad Aslam. According to Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Rashid accused visited 'their house, took out Javed in order to see one Muhammad Anwar. Complainant and others followed. All of them came to Chunian- and from Chunian they went to Pattoki on a bus. According to complainant Muhammad Rashid on the pretext of seeing another, friend alighted alongwith complainant and deceased at the bridge of a canal and started on foot for Ward No,10 and in their view Muhammad Rashid fired at Javed. The complainant claimed that he and witnesses namely Abdul Haq and Muhammad Abbas took deceased to Civil Hospital, Pattoki and Javed on account of his serious condition was referred to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. Javed died in the Mayo Hospital at Lahore. Dr. A.G.
Sajid, P.W.2 had medically examined Javed son of Abdur Rehman. He issued medico-legal .
Certificate Exh.P.A. Original medico-legal report is not on record. Only photocopy of the report has been exhibited as Exh.P.A. By the trial Court. We have noticed that only name and parentage of Javed (later deceased) was given in Exh.P. Originally it was shown that he was brought by the police. The words were scored of by all medical officers and underneath the scored-off writing it was written that citizens of Purani Mandi, Patooki had brought the deceased to hospital. The complainant and witnesses had not brought Javed to hospital as was claimed by them. He was removed to Mayo Hospital but even there particulars of Javed were not given. Muhammad Aslam complainant and witnesses do not find mention in any record of Mayo Hospital, Lahore. This aspect of the evidence is sufficient to indicate that the complainant and eye-witnesses were not accompanying Javed deceased when he was fired 'at. It has been submitted before us that Purani Mandi, Pattoki was a large locality but no one from that locality had come forward to support the prosecution. The complainant and witnesses were not residents of that area and were brought from elsewhere to become witnesses in the case. They were unable to establish their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of incident.
15. The prosecution case bristled with palpable flaws on prosecution failed to establish its case against Muhammad Rashid on the basis of any credible evidence. Even the investigatory evidence was less than honest. The evidence on record is hardly of a calibre on the basis of which Muhammad Rashid could have been convicted."
5. We have also gone through the reasons given by the trial Court and compared the same with the reasons given by the learned Judges of the High Court and find that in this case, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.
6. We are not satisfied that the incident as narrated in the F.I.R. Could in the ordinary course of human conduct takes place, as alleged.
7. No case has been made out for interference in the well-reasoned judgment passed by the High Court in this case for acquitting the respondents, therefore, this petition has no merits which, is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.