MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs ALLAH DITTA and others

ORDER

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---None has entered appearance to prosecute this petition on behalf of the petitioner, nor any request has been received seeking an adjournment.

2. After going through the memorandum of this petition, the impugned judgment passed by the.

High Court, and the relevant record of the case, we have noticed that the occurrence in this case had taken place at 11.00 P.M. during a night and the natural witnesses of the occurrence, i,e, the wife and children of Muhammad Sher deceased had not been produced before the trial court as eye- witnesses. We have further observed that the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution i,e, Muhammad Irshad complainant (PW8) and Rab Nawaz (PW9) were chance witnesses and the stated reason for their presence with the deceased at the relevant time had never been established before the trial court through any independent evidence. The motive set up by the prosecution could have best been proved through production of. Mst. Sumaira. Bibi before the trial court but she had not been produced by the prosecution. During the trial a different motive had been set up by the prosecution, but the said motive had not been confirmed by Rab Nawaz (PW9)'.

The alleged recovery of weapon from the custody of respondent No, 1 was legally inconsequential because admittedly the crime-empties had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after arrest of respondent No, 1 and after recovery of the weapon from his custody. In these circumstances the High Court had decided to extend the benefit of doubt to respondent No, 1 and we have not been able to take any legitimate exception to the said course adopted by the High Court. This petition is', therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.