1. ' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.--- Instant appeal has been directed against the judgment, dated 26-4-1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad whereby respondents Ghulam Abbas son of Hadayat Ali and Farzand Ali son of Khuda Bakhsh were tried under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. Alongwith Iftikhar alias Mithu and Abdul Ghani son of Mubarak Ali in a private complaint filed by Niamat Ali appellant for commission of murder of his son Waris Ali and were acquitted of the charge vide impugned judgment.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are that F.I.R. No,438 of 1991 Exh.P.B. Was got recorded by Niamat Ali appellant on 6-11-1991 at 7-50. a.m. With Police Station Nishat Ababd, District Faisalabad with the allegation that he alongwith Liaquat Ali, his son, Muhammad Latif son of Barkat Ali, his nephew was going to their land in the early morning on Katcha path and when they reached near Square No,6, Killa No,22, Waris Ali son of the complainant passed through them on a tractor, who was going to the land of one Sardar Muhammad to take fodder on a trolley from his fields to Faisalabad city when all of a sudden Ghulam Abbas, Farzand Ali, Iftikhar alias Mithu armed with .12 bore guns and Abdul Ghani empty-handed came out from Square No,7 Killa No,2 and both Abbas and Farzand caused fire-arm injuries on Waris Ali and ran away from the place of occurrence. Waris Ali succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
4. ' The motive for the occurrence was that a fight had taken place over the dispute of Ehata between the parties prior to the occurrence in which Waris Ali was seriously injured and case F.I.R. No, 145 of 1991 was registered against Iftikhar alias Mithu and others and a compromise was effected and residential Ehata which was bone of contention was divided between the parties but the accused - were not satisfied with the compromise, therefore, they committed the instant offence.
5. ' The investigation was conducted and the accused were declared innocent on which the appellant filed a private complaint. After recording preliminary evidence the accused were summoned to face the trial. Charge was framed. They denied the charge and claimed trial.
6. ' During the trial prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused.
7. Ocular account was furnished by Niamat Ali complainant P.W.3. He supported the story of the complainant Exh.P.C., while Liquat Ali son of Niamat Ali was examined as P.W.7. He also supported the prosecution story as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Post-mortem examination report Exh.P.D issued by Dr. Altaf Pervaiz Qasim who has proceeded abroad was proved by Rana Muhammad Zafrullah, Dispenser P.W.4. Report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.C. And that of Serologist Exh.P.M. Were also brought on record. Malik Sher Muhammad S.-I. P.W.9 had recorded the F.I.R. And investigated the case.
8. ' Statements of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Were recorded. They denied the allegation and claimed their innocence and false involvement.
9. ' The trial culminated into acquittal of the accused. Niamat Ali appellant filed petition for special leave to appeal and this Court vide order, dated 29-11-1994 issued notice only to the extent of Ghulam Abbas and Farzand Ali respondents.
10. ' Despite repeated calls nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants. Even on the last date which was 6-11-2001 learned counsel for the appellant was not in attendance, therefore, with the assistance of the learned State counsel and counsel representing the respondents, we have perused the record and are deciding the case on merits.
11. Accused-respondents were declared innocent in successive investigations. It was found that the occurrence took place in the field sometime early in the morning. It was unwitnessed occurrence.
12. Weapons of offence were also not recovered from the possession of the accused. Previous enmity of registration of criminal case was also admitted by the complainant P.W.3 Niamat Ali P.W.3 is father of Liaquat Ali P.W.7. Both the witnesses are inimical towards the accused/respondents and their statements have not been corroborated from any other independent source. The reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for acquittal of accused are borne out from the record. After reappraisal of the evidence we find that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court is just, proper, up to the norms and 'standard laid down by the Superior Courts. The appeal is dismissed having no force.