' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition has been filed against the judgment of High Court, dated 21-3-2003 whereby the appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, dated 25-9-1997 has been allowed and conviction/sentence awarded to them by the trial Court have been set aside.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondents faced trial in pursuance of F.I.R.
Exh.P.A./1 registered at Police Station, Pahrianwal, District Mandi Bahauddin on the stated allegation of committing the murder of Mehdi which took place on 4-3-1993 at 1-30 p.m. The learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 25-9-1987 convicted respondent Muhammad Nawaz under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death with the direction to pay compensation of Rs,20,000 to the legal heirs of deceased or in default to suffer 6 months' R.I. Whereas Muhammad Akbar and Mukhtar Ahmed convicted/sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay compensation of Rs,20,000 each to the legal heirs of deceased or in default to suffer 6 months' R.I. Each. Two co- accused namely Sarfraz and Nazeer Ahmed were acquitted of the charge. The convicts preferred appeal before the High Court which has been accepted vide the impugned judgment.
3. It may be noted that learned High Court interfered in the order of the trial Court for the reasons that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution to substantiate the accusation against them. The witnesses produced by the prosecution are highly interested because two persons namely Ghulam Rasool and Sardar khan whose names were mentioned in the F.I.R. Were not produced as eye-witnesses and the 3rd person namely Muhammad Sadiq was examined as eye-witness. The learned High Court had also examined in depth the medical evidence as well as the ocular testimony of the witnesses and concluded by the several cogent reasons that there is conflict in both type of tile evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant Rashid Ahmed contended that the evidence produced by the prosecution has not been appreciated in its true perspective and mainly for technical reasons the same has been discarded particularly the statement of the complainant Muhammad Rashid who has narrated the story as it was disclosed by him in the F.I.R. According to him the statement of complainant gets corroboration from the recovery of incriminating articles from the possession of the accused persons therefore, he prayed for grant of leave to reappraise the evidence.
5. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at length and have also gone through the impugned judgment carefully. It may be noted that in appeal High Court had examined evidentiary value of P.W. Sadiq whose name was not mentioned in F.I.R. But was introduced subsequently therefore, his evidence was rightly disbelieved. As far as the statement of complainant is concerned while taking into consideration it was opined by the learned High Court that his testimony does not get any corroboration from any independent source, including the recovery of incriminating articles which had also been found doubtful. Similarly the medical evidence produced by the prosecution was found conflicting with the ocular testimony of P.W. Muhammad Sadiq. It is to be noted that in the cases where acquittal has been recorded, the accused persons earn presumption of double innocence therefore, the Courts are very slow to interfere in such order unless it is shown that the judgment is perverse or the Court while recording the acquittal order had not taken into consideration important incriminating evidence etc. In this behalf reference may be made to the judgment reported as Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan PLD '1985 SC 11. In view of the test laid down in this reported judgment, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment neither is perverse nor any important incriminating piece of evidence has been left out from consideration therefore, under such circumstances impugned judgment admits no interference by this Court.
' Thus for the foregoing reasons, instant petition being without merit is dismissed.