NAZEER AHMAD vs GEHN.E KHAN and others

ORDER

' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---The respondents along with two others were tried in case registered vide F.I.R. No,195 of 2006 dated 24-6-2006, Police Station Saddar Jalapur Pirwala, District Multan for the murder of Ahmad Karim and the learned trial Court iu terms of its judgment dated 31-10-2007 while convicting the respondents acquitted the rest. The learned High Court vide impugned judgment dated 3-3-2009 annulled the trial Court judgment by giving benefit of doubt to the respondents and they were acquitted.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave on the ground that the learned High Court has acquitted the respondents for reasons not sustainable in the law; that the two eye-witnesses, who saw the occurrence had no enmity to falsely implicate the respondents; that the so called discrepancies, which the learned High Court considered sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution evidence, did not reflect any discrepancy on material point; that the petitioner/complainant was aggrieved of this honest investigation and that is why a private complaint was filed..

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we find that in disbelieving, the prosecution evidence, learned High. Court was persuaded by the fact that there was an unexplained delay of seven-hours in lodging the F.I:R.; that the two eye-witnesses resided at a distance of six/seven acres from the place of occurrence; that the respondents were declared innocent during investigation; that it was a night occurrence and the source of light was allegedly a torch which was never taken into possession and that there was a delay even in having postmortem conducted, which adversely reflected on the credibility of the prosecution version.

4. Having considered the evidence led with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the afore-referred considerations, which weighed with the learned High Court are cogent and borne out from the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred to any piece of evidence which could persuade this Court to interfere in the afore-referred findings. That being so, we do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.