' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---The above captioned Criminal Appeal, through leave of this Court, is directed against judgment dated 3-12-2003 by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore, accepting Criminal Appeal No,131 of 2000 filed by accused respondents setting aside their conviction and sentence recorded under section 302/34, P.P.C, by learned Sessions Judge, Chakwal, vide judgment dated 5-4-2000, answering the Murder Reference No,196/2000 against respondent Manzoor Hussain in the negative and dismissing appellant/complainant's Criminal Revision No,163 of 2000 for enhancement of sentence of life imprisonment awarded to respondents Kamran Shahzad and Maqbool Hussain.
2. Facts of the prosecution case as set out in F.I.R. (Exh.P.F.) lodged by complainant Muhammad Yaqoob shortly stated are, that on 14-6-1998 at about 4-30 p.m. Muhammad Fayyaz, brother-in- law of complainant had gone to a hotel situated near village 'Pond' where his co-villagers Manzoor Hussain, Maqbool Hussain and Kamran Shahzad, respondents, were present. They ran into discussion about the previous election which resulted in exchange of harsh words. The respondents started giving beating to Muhammad Fayyaz P.W. After that Fayyaz went to the house of the complainant and narrated the occurrence to him. Complainant, Fayyaz and Mumtaz P.Ws.
Riding on one motorcycle and Amjad Hussain (deceased) and Tanvir Sultan P.W. Riding on other motorcycle, proceeded towards police station Saddar, Chakwal, to report about the occurrence.
When they reached near the shop of Amir Khan, on the mettle road, respondents standing near the shop stopped the motorcycle on which Amjad Hussain and Tanvir Sultan were riding and enquired from them about their destination, upon which Amjad Hussain replied that they were going to police station for registration of a case. On this, Manzoor Hussain took out pistol from the fold of his trouser and raised `Lalkara' that he would teach them a lesson for their design to lodge the report and fired at Amjad Hussain hitting him below the left cheek. Amjad Hussain fell down from the motor cycle. After accomplishing the mission, respondents raising `Lalkaras' while Manzoor Hussain firing in the air, made good their escape. Complainant with the help of Mumtaz Hussain, Tanvir Sultan and Muhammad Fayyaz removed Amjad Hussain in injured condition to Civil Hospital, Chakwal but he could not survive and succumbed to the injuries. The motive leading to the turmoil was stated to be political rivalry between the two groups.
3. On receipt of message from Civil Hospital, Chakwal, about the death of Amjad Hussain, P.W. Lal Khan, S.-I. Police Station, Saddar, Chakwal, went to the hospital, recorded statement of the complainant and prepared inquest report as well as injury statement of the deceased and dispatched the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem examination. He also got prepared site plan (Exh.P.B.) through P.W. Bakhat Hameed. From the place of incident, he collected blood stained earth, took into possession a Yamaha motorcycle and a `Toka' lying near the place of incident, made their recovery memos. Accordingly and after completion of investigation, submitted challan against the respondents in the Court.
4. Dr. Haroon Iqbal, Medical Officer DHQ Hospital Chakwal on 14-6-1998 at about 6-30 p.m.
Conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries:-- "(1) Entry wound just below left cheek and 2 c.m. Behind the left can-thus of mouth. It was having blackening around and was 1-1/2 c.m. In dimension with blackening around. Margins inverted.
(2) Exit wound. It was 1-1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. In left neck area, covered by hair of head and was 9 c.m.
Behind left ear, 12 c.m. From mid line on left."
5. On 26-6-1998, P.W. Lal Khan S.-I., arrested accused respondent Manzoor Hussain. He was medically examined by Dr. Khalid Azadar, Medical Officer DHQ Hospital, Chakwal. Following injuries were found on his person:- "A healed linear wound 5 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. On the right side of the top of the skull, lengthwise. A healed linear wound on the right side of the back of the chest horizontal 7.5 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. A healed linear wound horizontal 5 c.m. On the upper side of the left calf, obliquely vertical in direction. A healed linear wound 7.5 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. On the upper side of the left calf, obliquely vertical in direction. A healed linear wound 5 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. On the left calf, horizontal in direction. A heard linear wound 5 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. On the left calf horizontal in direction."
6. The prosecution in order to prove the charge and substantiate the allegations produced Muhammad Sajawal Head Constable P.W.1, Tariq Mehmood Constable P.W.2, Bakhat Hameed Patwari P.W.3, Dr. Haroon Iqbal, Medical Officer P.W.4, Rabnawaz S.-I. P.W.5, Masood Ahmad Constable P.W.6, Haji Muhammad Latif P.W.7, Noor Sultan P.W.8, Muhammad Yaqoob complainant P.W.9. Muhammad Fayyaz P.W.10 and Lal Khan S.-I. P.W.11, whereas respondents examined Dr. Khalid Azadar, Medical Officer D.W.1 Muhammad Banaras D.W.2 and Amir Khan D.W.3 in their defence.
7. At the conclusion of trial, learned Sessions Judge, Chakwal by virtue of his judgment dated 5-4- 2000 awarded penalty of death as `Tazie to respondent Manzoor Hussain and sentenced respondents Kamran Shahzad and Maqbool Hussain to imprisonment for life, under section 302, P.P.C. They were also directed to pay Rs,20,000 each to legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default whereof, to suffer further S.I. For six months each.
8. Criminal Appeal by the respondents, challenging their conviction and sentences and Criminal Revision by complainant/appellant seeking enhancement of sentence of life imprisonment awarded to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were filed there-against before learned Lahore High Court.
Criminal Appeal was accepted whereas Criminal Revision was dismissed through the impugned judgment as mentioned and stated above.
9. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellant/complainant, Mr. Saddique Khan Baloch learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State and Dr. Babar Awan, learned Advocate representing the private respondents.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, after taking us through the evidence on record contended that overwhelming evidence consisting of ocular account, medical evidence, recovery and abscondence was available on record to prove participation of the respondents in the crime, which has not been examined and discussed thoroughly, resulting in miscarriage of justice and that plea taken by respondent Manzoor Hussain is fabricated and not substantiated by the evidence on record, justifying his acquittal.
11.. On his part, Dr. Babar Awan, learned counsel representing the private respondents, controverted the above contentions of learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned judgment whole heartedly maintaining that the findings recorded by learned High Court and the reasons resulting in the acquittal of the respondents are unexceptional and do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, calling for interference by this Court.
12. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, representing the State, defended the impugned judgment and reiterated the contentions raised by learned counsel for private respondents.
13. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length re-examining the record on file, we find that learned counsel for appellant has not been able to point out any piece of evidence which could persuade us to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is against the evidence brought on record. Learned High Court has given cogent and sound reasons for extending benefit of doubt to the respondents which are not open to legitimate exception and hardly warrant interference by this Court. Rahimullah Jan v. Kashif and another PLD 2008 SC 298, Ghulam Murtaza and another v. Muhammad Akram and other 2007 SCM R 1549 and Sikandar Hayat v. Muhammad Nawaz and others 1995 SCM R 616.
14. It needs no reiteration that when an accused person is acquitted from the charge by a Court of competent jurisdiction then, double presumption of innocence is attached to its order, with which the superior Courts do not interfere unless the impugned order is arbitrary, capricious, fanciful and against the record. It was observed by this Court in Muhammad Mansha Kausar v. Muhammad Asghar and others, 2003 SCM R 477 "that the law relating to re-appraisal of evidence in appeals against acquittal is stringent in that the presumption of innocence is double and multiplied after a finding of not guilty recorded by a competent Court of law. Such finding cannot be reserved, upset and disturbed except when the judgment is found to be perverse, shocking, alarming, artificial and suffering from error of jurisdiction or misreading/non-reading of evidence law requires that a judgment of acquittal shall not be disturbed even though second opinion may be reasonably possible."
15. It is also settled law that medical evidence may confirm the ocular evidence with regard to the seat of the injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not connect the accused with the commission of the crime.
16. Insofar as the abscondence of respondent is concerned, it may be stated that mere absconsion is not conclusive proof of guilt of an accused person. It is only a suspicious circumstance against an accused that he was found guilty of the offence. However, suspicions after all are suspicions.
The same cannot take the place of proof. The value of absconsion, therefore, depends on the facts of each case. The courts have admitted it is a supporting evidence of the guilt of accused. The absconsion of the accused may be consistent with the guilt or innocence of the accused, which is to be decided keeping in view overall facts of the case.
17. On careful examination of the evidence, circumstances appearing in the case and in the light of the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, we find that P.Ws. Muhammad Yaqoob (complainant) and Muhammad Fayyaz on account of their close relationship with the deceased are interested witnesses. They appear to be basically dishonest as they gave evidence with a motive other than of telling the truth, in that, they even suppressed the evidence which they were supposed to know in the ordinary course of events. It may be pertinently mentioned here that injuries on the person of respondent Manzoor Hussain have been suppressed by the prosecution for the reasons not far to seek. The incident does not appear to have taken place in the manner, as alleged. The prosecution case is pregnant with serious doubts and is full of confusions. The eye- witnesses have shown reckless disregard for the truth. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the conclusions arrived at by learned High Court were such that no reasonable person would conclusively reach the same.
18. In view of what has gone above, it follows that the reasons given by learned High Court for extending benefit of doubt to the respondents are neither irrelevant nor extraneous to the record.
Resultantly, finding no substance in the appeal, we dismiss the same and maintain the impugned judgment.