' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.--- Walayat son of Sain, respondent was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore in case F.I.R. No,295, dated 2-6-1998 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Ravi Road, Lahore, on the statement of Muhammad Ashfaq P.W.2 for commission of murder of his brother Razaq and was acquitted from the charge through impugned judgment, dated 1-7-1991 which was assailed by the State through the instant appeal.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case were that the complainant and his brother Razaq (deceased) used to work in Sabzi Mandi, Lahore and on the day of occurrence at 10-30 a.m. They were busy at the Plateform in front of Shop No,40 when Walayat respondent/ accused arrived there and had exchange of abuses with deceased on which Walayat accused pulled out a Chhuri and attacked Razaq deceased hitting on him different parts of body. The occurrence was also witnessed by Muhammad Asghar P.W.3. The accused ran away from the place of occurrence alongwith weapon of offence. Razaq was taken to Mayo Hospital in injured condition but he succumbed to the injuries.
3. The statement of Mushtaq (Exh.P.3) was recorded by Bashir Ahmad, S.-I. P.W.8 and he undertook the investigation. The postmortem examination was got conducted through Dr.. Farooq Mustafa Alvi P.W.6. He arrested the accused, effected the recovery of weapon of offence, recorded statements of the prosecution witnesses and submitted the challan.
4. The charge was framed against the accused who denied the same and the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses to prove guilt of the accused. The statement of the accused under section 342 Cr.P.C. Was also recorded who had denied the charge and claimed his innocence and false involvement. The trial culminated into acquittal of the accused as mentioned above, hence this appeal.
5. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has argued that it was a daylight occurrence. The prosecution witnesses were natural and had no previous enmity to falsely implicate the accused.
The ocular account was corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon of offence and the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
6. We have given due consideration to the contention raised by learned Law Officer and have also perused the record. From the accused side nobody is in attendance despite name of the learned counsel has been duly reflected in the cause list. Therefore, we have proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.
7. Muhammad Ashfaq P.W.2 and Muhammad Asghar P.W.3 claimed to be eye-witness of the occurrence, but they were residents of District Gujrat. They have failed to show their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. The reasons given by the trial Court to disbelieve their statements in para.32 of the judgment are borne out from the record. The material discrepancy in their statements has also been noticed by the trial Court. The complainant who is real brother of the deceased could not prove the fact that Razaq was taken to hospital by him in injured condition.
The recovery of weapon of offence was also not proved by the prosecution.
8. After deep re-appraisal of the evidence we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court' to acquit the accused and do not find any misreading of evidence or illegality or infirmity of the reasons in the impugned judgment to be interfered with. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed having no force.