' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 24-12-2001 of the Division Bench of Lahore High Court, whereby on acceptance of appeal filed by respondent convicts their conviction under sections 302(b)/34, P.P.C. Recorded by the Trial Court has been set aside and they have been acquitted for the charges.
2. The motive which was highlighted in the F.I.R. Was that Muhammad Saleem objected to the bringing of Tractor of the accused person on their land due to which they committed murder. The ocular account was given by Mansab Khan father of the complainant himself i.e, father of the deceased who appeared as P.W.B. The Trial Court after considering the evidence produced by the prosecution came to the conclusion that case against respondents Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 had been proved. Respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 were awarded death penalty whereas respondent No,4 life imprisonment through judgment, dated 17-6-1997 against which appeal filed by the said conviction has been accepted through the impugned judgment, dated 24-12-2001.
3. The findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment in paras. 9, 10 and 11 are reproduced below:-- "9. The ocular account in this case was furnished by Mansab Khan the complainant, father of the deceased (P.W.8) and Fateh Muhammad (P.W.9), who is son-in-law of Mansab Khan and brother- in-law of Muhammad Saleem deceased. As far as enmity between the parties is concerned, it may be mentioned here that it was admitted by Mansab Khan P.W. 8 at page 41 of the paper book that the deceased had alleged a Nikah with the daughter of Mansab Khan but the matter has since been compromised and he had paid Rs.10,000 to Mansab Khan accused. The witness also admitted that Punchayat was convened for resolution of the above issue and the Punchayat found Muhammad Saleem deceased as accused and also made him divorce. No independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. It has come on record during the cross-examination of P.W.8 Mansab Khan that Hayat Bibi is widow of Muhammad Saleem, Shah Muhammad is his brother. Shah Muhammad was reported for the abduction of Mst. Parveen Akhtar alongwith Muhammad Saleer and that the above case was pending trial during the days of present occurrence. In these circumstances and with this background possibility of Muhammad Saleem havir been killed by near relations of Mst. Parveen Akhtar who was a married lady cannot be ruled out, Khan Muhammad was husband of Parveen Akhtar and was employed in Rangers so the possibility of the deceased being killed by Khan Muhammad cannot be ruled out but he might have been left by the complainant party for the reason that P.W. Had admitted on the next page, that said Khan Muhammad was related to him. The complainant used to reside at a distance of 1- 1/2 miles from the place of occurrence. In the relevant column of post-mortem report, no date and time of occurrence has been given. Mansab Khan P.W.8 in cross-examination admitted that clothes of the eye-witnesses did not get blood-stained on them while P.W.9. Fateh Muhammad admitted that he got the blood stains on his clothes but in the same breath stated that his clothes were not stained with blood. Mansab Khan P.W.8 and Fateh Muhammad P.W.9 had stated that on the day of occurrence they had gone to the lands of Mian Muhammad Dharki to bring to the wood which was lying there after cutting of three trees purchased by the complainant from Mian Muhammad Darkhan but neither the said Mian Muhammad was cited or produced as a P.W. Nor the wood cut by the complainant which was lying at the place of occurrence were either shown by the Patwari in the plan Exh.P.C. Or by the Investigating Officer in the plan Exh. P.L repaired by him without scale. We are thus of the confirmed view that eyewitnesses were not present at the spot in fact it was an unwitnessed occurrence.
10. According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place at 7 a.m. On 5-7-1995. Three appellants namely Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Taj and Atta Muhammad were armed with fire-arms while Khan Muhammad who has been awarded life imprisonment was armed with a Dang. According to the F.I.R. Three appellants who were armed with fire-arms fired two shots each but not a single empty was recovered from the spot. Khan Muhammad appellant was armed with a Dang. He allegedly gave two injuries on the person of the deceased, one on the back of right side of head and other in front of right side of his head. According to post-mortem report there were four lacerated wounds which are injuries 1 to 4 while injuries 5 to 12 were with fire-arms. The doctor (P. W.10) had not mentioned as to which of these 12 injuries were with fire-arms and with blunt weapon. The post-mortem was conducted at 11 a.m. On 5-7-1995. The duration given by the doctor between the death and post-mortem was 4 to 8 hours. If the duration is taken into consideration, then the occurrence should have taken place at 3 a.m. (dead dark hours of the night) and this was also the defence version while according to the complainant the occurrence took place at 6 a.m. It may also be noted that according to contents of abdomen, large intestine contained faceal matter while the bladder contained 50 CC of urine. It also suggests that the occurrence had taken place at 3 a.m. And not at the time as alleged by the prosecution, that is, 7 a.m. Two injuries with dang were attributed to Khan Muhammad, appellant by the complainant while in fact there were four blunt weapon injuries on the person of the deceased. In these circumstances we are firm in view that ocular account is contradicted by the medical evidence.
(11) No empty was recovered from the spot though according to prosecution, three appellants armed with fire-arms fired two shots each. So mere recovery of guns on the pointation of the accused appellants are no avail to the prosecution."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that these findings are based on misreading or non-reading of any piece of evidence. The evidence has been thoroughly appraised in this case by the High Court which satisfy the principles laid down by the Superior Court, for appraisal of evidence in criminal case for safe administration of criminal justice.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits, which is accordingly dismissed and .