' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- The above captioned petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment dated 21-5-2004 whereby the criminal appeal preferred on behalf of Nayyar Ahmed (respondent in Criminal Appeal No,286 of 2004) has been accepted by setting aside the acquittal order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Balakot.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that an altercation ensued due to a dispute on cutting grass which resulted in an attack by Raza-ur-Rehman, Sana-ur-Rehman and Saif-ur-Rehman upon the respondent who sustained tooth injuries which was determined as grievous. A case was got registered by the respondent by means of F.I.R. No,187, dated 9-6-1998 at Police Station Balakot under sections 337-A(ii) and 337 and section 34, P.P.C. The petitioner along with' co-accused were arrested and after completion of investigation sent up for trial and on conclusion whereof they were acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Balakot by means of order, dated 5-7-2000 which was assailed by the respondent by way of appeal which has been accepted, hence these petitions.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqi, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and contended that the learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, (Abbottabad Bench) has failed to appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the matter in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice as the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Balakot, acquitting the petitioner being well-based should have not been interfered with. It is next contended that the learned single Judge in Chambers has erred while holding that the ocular account was supported by medical evidence. It is also pointed out that no reasoning whatsoever could be given by the learned Single Judge in Chambers for convicting the respondents and besides that the evidence led by the prosecution was inconsistent, vague and sketchy on the basis whereof no conviction could have been awarded.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as canvassed at bar on behalf of the petitioners, thrashed out the entire record and perused the judgment impugned with care and caution. Let we make it clear here at this juncture that "the principles which have been consistently followed by the Supreme Court are that as an ultimate Court, the Supreme Court must give due weight and consideration to the findings of the Courts below, and normally it should not interfere with their findings where it is satisfied that they are reasonable and were not arrived at by disregard of any accepted principle regarding appreciation of evidence. The mere fact that the Supreme Court might have taken a different view of the evidence should not be sufficient to overrule the findings of the Court below. However, if the grounds upon which the High Court has acted are not supportable on the record, or the decision on a question of fact has turned upon inadmissible evidence or upon a faulty reading of evidence, or where there has been a departure from the procedure in the reception of evidence or otherwise interference by this Court would be justified and necessary. Therefore, Supreme Court will be reluctant to interfere with such orders unless it is possible to demonstrate with certainty that none of the grounds upon which he was acquitted is at all supportable, even though upon the evidence on record a different conclusion might be arrived at. But where the acquittal of the respondent cannot be maintained as the findings recorded by the High Court are clearly not supportable on the record, interference by the Supreme Courted is not only justified but necessary in the interest of justice". Farid v. Aslam PLD 1977 SC 4; State v. Khan Beg 1970 SCM R 353; Haq Nawaz v. Muhammad Khan 1977 SCM R 356; Dal Singh v. King Emperor AIR 1917 PC 25; Bertrand's case (1867) 1 PC 520; Abraham Mallory Dillett's case (1887) 12 AC 459; Taba Singh v. Emperor AIR 1925 PC 59; Otto George feller v. The King AIR 1943 PC 211; Mohindar Singh v.
Emperor AIR 1932 PC 234; Muhammad Nawaz v. Emperor AIR 1941 PC 132; Muhammad Ashiq v. Allah Bakhsh PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 293; Fateh Muhammad v. Bagoo PLD 1960 SC 286; Zafar Ali v. The State PLD 1962 SC 320 and Siraj Din v. Kala PLD 1964 SC 26.
5. On the touchstone of the criterion as mentioned hereinabove we have examined the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Balakot acquitting the accused which has been reversed vide judgment impugned. We are of the considered view that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Balakot has not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective causing serious prejudice against the respondent. It has been observed that the statement of Ajab Khan P.W. Has been misconstrued by the learned Judicial Magistrate who had mentioned in a categoric manner that respondents were quarrelling with Sajjad Ahmed P.W. While Nayyar Ahmed (respondent/complainant) was sitting at some distance and blood was oozing from his forehead and mouth. The learned Judicial Magistrate has ignored the fact that Ajab Khan (P.W.) has arrived at the place of occurrence due to commotion and witnessed the occurrence as stated by him. No exaggeration or dishonest concealment could be pointed out in his statement by the learned Judicial Magistrate and being worthy of credence it could not have been discarded. It has been observed that the statement of Sajjad Ahmed P.W. Who is an eye-witness has been discarded being brother of Nayyar Ahmed (respondent/ complainant) in violation of the well-entrenched legal proposition that on the basis of inter se relationship, the statement of a witness cannot be discarded. The learned Judicial Magistrate has failed to appreciate the intrinsic value of the eye account as furnished by Sajjad Ahmed (P.W.). The medical evidence lends full corroboration to the ocular evidence furnished by Dr. Fazlur Rehman, Medical Officer (P.W.1) and Dr. Salim Anwar, Dental Surgeon (P.W.) which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- ' Dr. Fazlur Rehman, Medical Officer, P.W.
"(1) Complaining of pain in the teeth for which referred to Dental Surgeon.
(2) Scartches on the right side of neck only superficial layer of skin.
(3) A lacerated wound on forehead left 1/4" into underlying bone visible.
(4) Complaining of vertigo. According to this witness the weapon was blunt and time between the injury and examination was 1/2 hour to 2-00 hours."
' Dr. Salim Anwar, Dental Suregon, P.W.
"(1) Left upper central incisor is out of place due to the blow. The tooth socket is bleeding. That is completely out of socket due to the blow.
(2) One lacerated half inch bleeding wound on lower lip (left side) just opposite to lateral incisor and canine. Buration: Three hours.
' Nature of injury: Grievous."
6. A bare perusal of the medical evidence would lead to draw the conclusion that left upper central incisor was out of place due to the blow and moreso the tooth socket was bleeding and besides that one lacerated wound on the joint lower lip was also pointed out which escaped the notice of learned Judicial Magistrate. Insofar as the non-production of lost tooth is concerned it would have no substantial bearing on merits of the case.
7. After having gone through the entire record we are of the considered view that the prosecution has established the guilt to the hilt. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in Chambers has appreciated the evidence in accordance with law, settled norms of justice and well-entrenched principles enunciated by this Court qua safe administration of justice. The judgment impugned being well-based does not warrant interference.
8. The Criminal Petition bearing No,341 of 2004 preferred on behalf of Nayyar Ahmed being barred by 76 days and devoid of merit is dismissed. It would not be out of place to mention that sufficient incriminating material could not be brought on record inferring that Raza-ur-Rehman and Saif-ur- Rehman were also responsible for the commission of the alleged offences and they are not liable to be conviction and sentenced as pressed time and again on behalf of Nayyar Ahmed, petitioner in Criminal Petition No,341 of 2004.
' In sequel to above mentioned discussion, both the petitions are hereby dismissed and leave refused.