Rana MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATE and others

ORDER

MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Rana Muhammad Akram, petitioner herein seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 18-4-1993, of the Lahore High Court, whereby Criminal Revision No,677/1993, filed by him was dismissed.

2.The petitioner lodged complaint on 10-5-1981, against Sultan, Munir, Attiq and Shafiq respondents under section 302/34, P.P.C., for murder of his brother Muhammad Ayub. According to him on 12-2- 1981, at about 8/9 a.m. While Muhammad Ayub was waiting to board bus at General Bus Stand, Okara, he was attacked by the respondents with iron pipes and they inflicted (17) injuries on his person out of which four were grievous and three multiple. The injured was taken to City Hospital, Okara, where his statement was recorded by Ghulam Muhammad, S.I. Police Station, City Okara, and the case under section 307/34, P.P.C. Was registered against the accused. Muhammad Ayub was then shifted to Mayo Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries on 1-3-1981. The offence, therefore, was converted to section 302/34, P.P.C.

3.During the investigation, all the accused were found innocent and their names were placed in Column No,2 of the Challan. The prosecution held Boota, Saeed and Anwar responsible for the injuries suffered by the deceased and their names were mentioned in the Challan.

4.Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Investigating Agency the petitioner filed the complaint against the respondents. The case was entrusted for trial to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, he vide his judgment dated 7-10-1981, acquitted the respondents under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. And challan case was submitted for trial to some other Court.

5.The petitioner challenged aforementioned judgment in revision in the High Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 18-4-1993.

6.The petitioner who appeared in person contended that the respondents are real culprits and they have been wrongly let off by the learned trial Judge and that order has illegally been confirmed in revision by the High Court. It was also submitted that the occurrence had taken place in the broad daylight and the deceased himself made statement holding the respondents responsible for the crime. The learned trial Judge gave no importance to the statement of the injured made before his death.

7.We have heard the petitioner and have perused the evidence on the record. The petitioner has not denied that Muhammad Rafiq P.W. Was given up at the trial and Hakeem and Arshad P.Ws., turned hostile. Hakeem P.W. Stated that at the time of occurrence the assailants had muffled their faces. Arshad P.W. Stated that he did not know them. The witnesses were also cross-examined by the prosecution as well as the defence. The learned, trial Court as also the High Court rightly placed no reliance on their testimony to convict the respondents on capital charge.

8.In our view, the impugned judgments of the learned Courts below suffer from no legal infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court.

9.Resultantly, this petition fails and is dismissed.