' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner alongwith Muhammad Sarwar and Abdul Hameed were tried for the murder of Muhammad. Iqbal, nephew of complainant Sher Muhammad. The occurrence took place on 15-3-1989 at 10-30 a.m. And F.I.R. Was lodged promptly at 10-50 a.m. According to the prosecution, Muhammad Sarwar and Abdul Hameed, co-accused were armed with rifles whereas the petitioner had carbine in his possession.
2. Ineffective firing was attributed to Muhammad Sarwar and Abdul Hameed, therefore, the trial Court giving them benefit of doubt acquitted them. The evidence against the present petitioner consists of ocular account furnished by Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Siddique eye- witnesses. Sher Muhammad is the uncle of the deceased who lodged the said F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Muhammad Iqbal was accused in the murder case of Abdul Aziz which took place in 1979. This Abdul Aziz was the father of Muhammad Sarwar and brother of Abdul Hameed, co-accused. The F.I.R. Of the said incident was lodged by Muhammad Boota the present petitioner. It was argued that on account of the fact that Muhammad Iqbal was not convicted and sentenced in that murder case of Abdul Aziz, Muhammad Sarwar and Abdul Hameed should have felt annoyed against Muhammad lqbal and not the present petitioner.
4. We are afraid, the argument has no force. The petitioner remained absconder admittedly for nine years without any plausible explanation. The ocular account given by Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Siddique inspires confidence and in spite of lengthy cross-examination conducted on them, nothing could be brought against them to shatter their testimony.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Muhammad Boota who was the complainant in the case of murder of Abdul Aziz had no reason to cause the death of Muhammad lqbal in this case, therefore, on account of this fact, he should have been acquitted, as motive is shrouded in mystery.
6. This argument has also no force. The petitioner has already been given leniency by the trial Court as regards sentence as capital sentence of death has not been awarded though it has been held that the case against him had been proved.
7. No case has been made out for interference in the well-reasoned judgments passed by the Courts below which are based on correct, elaborate and careful appraisal of evidence and are in accordance with the principles laid down by the superior Courts for safe administration of criminal justice, therefore, this petition being meritless is hereby dismissed and .