Abdul Hameed Dogar, J.--Through this criminal petition, petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 20.9.2001 whereby a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi allowed Criminal Appeal No, 434-T of 2000, set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents and acquitted them of the charges.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the institution of the instant petition are that petitioner/complainant is the brother of deceased Muhammad Zaman. The deceased alongwith his wife Mst. Piari Jan used to live alone. On the night in between 14/15.10.1999, PW, Tikka Khan informed complainant that he had heard the sound of groaning while crossing near the house of Muhammad Zaman. On such information, petitioner went to the house of the deceased which was found locked from inside. He scaled over the wall, opened the door and went inside the room where deceased used to sleep. He found deceased Piari Jan tied with ropes and was dead, whereas deceased Muhammad Zaman was lying unconscious in injured condition. He removed the injured in a pickup to the hospital but succumbed to the injuries on the way. Consequently, he lodged FIR No, 423 at Police Station Gujar Khan, District Rawalpindi. On coming back to the house of deceased, petitioner found 8 gold bangles, 4 gold earrings, 3 gold buttons, gold chain of deceased Piari Jan and Rs, 1450/- missing.
3. Muhammad Asif, SHO, PW-15 investigated the case, arrested the respondents and recovered the stolen articles on their pointation.
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined 15 witnesses, namely, Amanullah, HC (PW-1), Muhammad Azam, Constable (PW-2), Modasar Raza, Constable (PW-3), Ghulam Murtaza (PW-4), Raza Hussain Shah, HC (PW-5), Muhammad Zaman (PW-6), Tikka Khan (PW-7), Qamar Zaman (PW-8), Nazakat Hussain (PW-9), Subedar Abdul Kareem (PW-10), Qamarud-Din (PW-11), Dr. Shahida Mir (PW-12), Dr. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmed (PW-13), Muhammad Jehangir (PW-14) and Muhammad Asif, Inspector/SHO (PW-15).
5. When examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. the respondents denied all the incriminating circumstances and raised plea of false implication. Respondent Yasir Mahmood examined himself on oath in disproof of charge only and also produced Muhammad Iqbal (DW-1), Muhammad Basharat (DW-2), Fida Hussain (DW-3), and Farzand Ali (DW-4) in his defence.
6. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 17.10.2000 convicted and sentenced the respondents as under:--
(i) Under Section 148 PPC all the respondents were convicted and sentenced to three years RI. They were directed to pay a fine of Rs, 1,000/- each or in default to further undergone one month RI each.
(ii)Under Section 460 PPC all the respondents were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of life.
(iii)Under Section 396 PPC read with Section 149 PPC respondent Wasim Iqbal was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of deceased Muhammad Zaman whereas rest were sentenced to imprisonment for life. However, respondent Wasim Iqbal was directed to pay Rs, 1 lac as compensation to the legal heirs under Section 544-A Cr.P.C.
(iv)Under Section 396 PPC all the respondents were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for committing murder of deceased Piari. They were further directed to pay Rs, 1 lac as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default thereof to further undergo 1 year RT.
(v)Under Section 411 PPC all the resp-mdents were convicted and sentenced for 3 years RI with fine of R. 1,000/- each.
Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to all of them with direction that sentences shall run concurrently.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed Criminal Appeal No, 434-T of 2000 before learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi which was allowed vide judgment impugned.
8. We have heard Sh. Zamir Hussain, learned ASC on behalf of petitioner at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the prosecution has successfully brought home guilt of the respondents through circumstantial evidence: such as extra-judicial confession and recovery of looted articles. According to him respondent Wasim Iqbal had confessed the commission of crime before PW-9 Nazakat Hussain voluntarily and without any duress. The recovery of articles of the deceased from the respondents is another important piece of evidence to connect respondents with the murder of the deceased. The reasons advanced by the learned High Court for acquitting the respondents are neither sound nor cogent but are artificial and fanciful, thus liable to be set aside.
10.We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and are of the opinion that learned High Court after having applied its conscious mind has disbelieved all the categories of evidence relied upon by the prosecution, such as extra-judicial confession and incriminating recoveries made from the respondents.
11.In the instant case, the statement of PW-9 Nazakat Hussain is of vital importance before whom it is said that respondent Waseem Iqbal confessed his guilt in the house of Banaras. We are not all impressed with the statement of PW-9 Nazakat Hussain before whom respondent Wasim Iqbal is said to have made extra judicial confession for the reason that he does not appear to be a person in a commanding position so as to influence local police with a view to help him. The story of the prosecution that respondent voluntarily came to the house of Banaras and made confession runs counter to the natural probabilities and tend to show that extrajudicial confession was in fact not made at all.
12.The recovery of the golden articles said to be belonging to deceased Plari Jan being articles of common pattern were neither got identified in accordance with law nor were exhibited in the trial, as such, basing reliance upon the same and awarding capital punishment would not at all be justified.
13. The consideration warranting interference in appeals against acquittal and in appeals against conviction are quite different. This Court cannot interfere unless the grounds on which the High Court had acquitted the respondents were not supportable from the evidence on record or the judgment of acquittal is perverse and reasons thereof are artificial and ridiculous. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the impugned judgment.
14.Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed and leave refused.