' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The detailed facts have already been mentioned in the impugned judgment.
However, necessary facts out of which the present petition arises are that respondent No,1 was involved in a case. F.I.R. No,43 of 2002 which was registered at Police Station Kuchlac, Quetta under section 302, P.P.C. For committing murder of one -Saeed Khan on the complaint of Abdul Mateen father of deceased (present petitioner). The investigation agency investigated the matter and found Sahib khan respondent guilty and submitted challan in the competent Court against the respondent. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge Quetta vide judgment dated 26-3-2004 convicted the respondent under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life as Tazeer along with compensation to the tune of Rs,50,000. In case of default in payment of compensation to further undergo S.I. For six months. It is pertinent to mention here that benefit of section 382-B of Cr.P.C. Was also extended in favour of respondent. Respondent being aggrieved filed Criminal Appeal No,136 of 2005 in the High Court of Balochistan whereas the complainant/petitioner also filed Criminal Revision No,23 of 2004 which were decided by one consolidated judgment by the learned High Court. The learned High Court accepted the appeal of the respondent vide impugned judgment dated 8-8-2005 and acquitted him whereas the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court had convicted the respondent as the prosecution has proved its case against the respondent beyond the shadow of doubt consisting of confession of the respondent, circumstantial evidence, recoveries and discoveries, motive and medical evidence whereas the learned High Court had accepted the appeal by misreading and non-reading of the record. He further urges that learned High Court had decided the case against the petitioner on surmises and conjunctures. He further urges that learned High Court had acquitted the respondent without judicial application of mind.
3. We have given our due consideration to the contention of learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record. It is deemed proper to reproduce principle laid down to interfere where the accused were acquitted by the Courts below:-- See Ghulam Sakindar and another v. Mumaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11: "(I) In an appeal against acquittal the Supreme. Court would not on principle ordinarily interfere and instead would give due weight and consideration to the findings of Court acquitting the accused. This approach is slightly different than that in an appeal against conviction when leave is granted only for the appraisement of evidence which then is undertaken so as to see that benefit of every reasonable doubt should be extended to the accused. This difference of approach is mainly conditioned by the fact that the acquittal carries with it the two well-accepted presumptions: one initial, that till found guilty, the accused is innocent; and two that again after the trial a court below confirmed the assumption of innocence.
(II) The acquitted will not carry the second presumption and will also thus lose the first one if on points having conclusive effect on the end result the Court below: (a) disregarded material evidence; (b) misread such evidence; (c) received such evidence illegally.
(III) In either case the well-known principles of re-appraisement of 'evidence will have to be kept in view when examining the strength of the views expressed by the Court below. They will not be brushed aside lightly on mere assumptions keeping always' in view that a departure from the normal principle must be necessitated by obligatory observances of some higher principles as noted above and for no other reasons.
(IV) The Court would not interfere with acquittal merely because on re-appraisal of the evidence it comes to the conclusion different from that of the Court acquitting the accused provided both the conclusions are reasonably possible. If however, the conclusion reached by that Court was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same and was impossible then this Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusion and irresistible conclusions; and that too with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and for no other purpose. The important test visualized in these cases, in this behalf was that the findings sought to be interfered with after scrutiny under the foregoing searching light, should be found wholly as artificial shocking and ridiculous".
4. It is well-settled by now that the superior Courts while dealing with the appeal against acquittal interfered only in such cases where the judgment and acquittal is based on misreading and non- appraisal of evidence or his speculative, artificial, arbitrary and foolish on its face. The learned High Court while deciding the appeal of the respondent had kept in mind the aforesaid principle.
According to the prosecution version, the respondent had admitted the guilt himself before P.W.7 Abdul Mateen complainant. The learned High Court had not believed the extra judicial concession with cogent reasons in view of contradictions and improvements in the statements of the witnesses and P.W.7 had improved the statement in such a manner to explain the delay of more than 8 hours i,e, from 2-00 p.m. To 10-20 p.m. And this fact had brought the statement of P.W.7 in the area of doubt. It is pertinent to mention here that prosecution could not brought any independent corroboration to prove the extra judicial confession made by respondent. It is true that extra judicial confessions must be proved by evidence of a very high and un-impeachable character but we are of the opinion that there is no evidence of that character in the circumstances of this case. The learned High Court had also after scanning the evidence on record came to the conclusion that discovery of dead body on the pointation of respondent was highly doubtful as the prosecution failed to bring on record any memo about the disclosure of respondent before witnesses or to bring on record any memo. About the seizure of dead body on the pointation of respondent coupled with the fact that memo. Was prepared for recovery of blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence but the same has not mentioned about the recovery of dead body of deceased on pointation of respondent accused and the prosecution did not corroborate this piece of evidence through any independent piece of evidence. The learned High Court had also after proper re-appraisal of the evidence on record had found recovery of weapon of offence from the respondent/accused to be shrouded in doubt. P.W.4 Moula Dad A.S.I.
Had also admitted in cross-examination that weapon of offence was not blood stained. Similarly the learned High Court had also come to conclusion that recoveries of knife and Shalwar could not lend any support to the case of prosecution to connect the respondent with the commission of crime with cogent reasons coupled with the fact that P.W.9 Abdul Manaf S.I./S.H.O. Also admitted that complainant Abdul Mateen had filed application before him wherein he alleged that apart from the respondent others were also involved in the murder of his son and use of Kalashnikov/pistol was also alleged. The learned High Court after scanning of the evidence had come to the conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond any shadow of doubt. It is a settled principle of law that a accused in a criminal trial is presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise and when he is acquitted by the learned High Court on his appeal against his conviction, earns double presumption of innocence. The burden heavily lies on the prosecution to rebut the said presumption. The learned counsel of the petitioner has miserably failed to rebut the said presumption. It is an admitted fact that there is no direct evidence in this case. All the evidence is based on different sets of circumstantial evidence. We are of the opinion that such evidence which requires corroboration cannot corroborate each other and therefore, cannot legal basis for conviction. Meaning thereby where there are two sets of evidence neither of which alone can be accepted without corroboration, they cannot each in its turn be taken to corroborate the other and joint together so as to justify any Court in acting on such evidence. See Empress v. Jadub Das ILR 27 Kal. 295 and Machia and 2 others v.The State PLD 1976 SC 695. It is a settled law that, even if recovery is believed, it is only corroborative. When there is no evidence on record to be relied upon, then there is nothing which can be corroborated by the recovery as law laid down by this Court in Saifullah's case 1985 SCM R 410. It is the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that finding of guilt against a accused cannot be based only on the probabilities that may be inferred from evidence in a given case and finding of the guilt should rest firmly on the evidence produced. The learned High Court was justified to give benefit of doubt to him keeping in view the golden rule of benefit of doubt. See Muhammad Ramzan's case PLD 1984 SC 184. It is a settled principle of law that this Court cannot interfere in the conclusions arrived at by the learned High Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan unless and until the conclusion is result of perversity arbitrary. See Malik Muhammad Ishaque's case PLD 1977 SC 109.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.