MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus DAUD

ORDER

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.- -Muhammad Aslam petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 14-2-1984 whereby it acquitted Dawood and Sher Muhammad respondents. The two respondents were tried for the murder of their own father Haji Ghulam Muhammad.

2 The motive alleged for the murder of the deceased was that he (Haji Ghulam Muhammad deceased) father of the two respondents had divorced their mother Mst. Aisha Bibi had remarried and disinherited the two respondents who were sons through Aisha Bibi by an Aknama.

3. The F.I.R. was lodged by Muhammad Aslam the son-in-law of the deceased who is the only eye-witness in the case. Two witnesses namely Muhammad Aslam aforesaid (complainant) and one Muhammad Abdullah but at the trial only Muhammad Aslam appeared against the accused-respondents and Muhammad Abdullah was not produced. One carbine from each of the two accused was said to have been recovered but those could not be connected with the offence in question.

4. The learned trial Court acquitted Daud respondent (younger brother of Sher Muhammad respondent) but convicted Sher Muhammad under section 302, PPC and sentenced him to death. On appeal the High Court acquitted him vide the impugned judgment.

Hence the present petition . . . . .

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there was sufficient evidence on the record to establish the guilt of the respondents and that the Courts below had erred in acquitting them.

6. We have gone through the impugned judgment in the light of ' the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We find that the solitary witness produced by the prosecution was the husband of the step-sister of the two accused-respondents and was therefore interested witness inasmuch as he stood to gain by getting the respondents convicted for the murder of their father because in that event his wife (who was the step-sisters of the two accused respondents) would inherit the greater part of the property of the deceased. There is nothing on the record to corroborate the testimony of the solitary eye-witness qua identity of the assailants. We are, therefore, of the view that the Courts below had rightly given the benefit of doubt to the two respondents.

In this view of the matter leave is refused in this case.

S.Q./M-290/S Leave refused.