' KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--- The appellant, son of Sarwar Sultan, the complainant (since deceased) was granted leave to appeal by this Court on 10-5-1999 from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 17-6-1996, by which judgment of the High Court proceeded to set aside the judgment of the Special Court for Speedy Trials-I, Karachi and acquitted the respondents from the charge of killing Shafqat Sultan son of the complainant and brother of the appellant, to reappraise the entire evidence so as to determine as to which of the conflicting conclusions viz. That of trial Court or the High Court are correct.
2. At the outset, Mr. Azizullah Sheikh, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondents Nos.1 and 2 informed that Sajawal Khan accused-respondent No,3 has since died and to his extent the appeal may be held to have abated. He has placed on record the document indicating the death of respondent No,3. The statement has not been questioned by learned counsel for the appellant.
Accordingly, it is held that this appeal as against the aforesaid respondent abates.
3. According to F.I.R. No,99 of 1993 dated 22-5-1993 registered at Police Station Risala District South Karachi on the statement of Sarwar Sultan, P.W.1, (since deceased), the occurrence took place on 22-5-1993 at 10-30 hours morning, in the Verandah/Chamber of Additional District Judge-II, East, new building, City Courts, Karachi at a distance of three furlongs from the police station. It is stated in the F.I.R. That the complainant, his son Shafqat Sultan deceased and his two servants namely, Mirza Khan and Jehangir Khan were present in the City Courts in connection with cancellation of pre-arrest bail of respondents when they spotted the respondents along with Rana Sarwar (the absconding accused), duly armed with automatic weapons, Rana Sarwar, the absconding accused was claimed to be armed with a big pistol. On seeing the accused Shafqat Sultan took the complainant to the Chamber of the Judge saying:- "Baba, these accused persons want to kill us"
' As they got in and were bolting the door from inside, the accused opened indiscriminate firing at the door of Chamber. Some shots pierced through the door, hit Shafqat Sultan deceased at the ear and head as a result of which he started bleeding and fell down. It is claimed that the two servants tried to capture the accused persons along with other people but they ran away, firing indiscriminately. Shafqat Sultan died on the spot. The complainant stated that the accused persons were having enmity with him and cases were already registered against them at Police Station Jamshed Quarter and Police Station Risala. The complainant further claimed that the accused persons have been threatening to commit the murder of complainant and his children. It is also asserted that Mirza Khan, P.W.3, a servant of the complainant was holding licensed pistol of the complainant but the accused snatched the pistol from him while beating him as a result of which Mirza Khan, P.W. Also received injury on his head. After investigation, the three respondents- accused were put on trial while Rana Sarwar accused was declared absconder. It is stated that till today he is an absconder and he has not faced the process of law.
4. At the trial, the accused appeared as their own witnesses and while denying the allegation, pleaded that they were not present at the spot at the relevant time. Altaf Hussain-respondent stated that at the relevant time he was in the Clinic and was administered a drip by the doctor, Junaid Sarwar, D.W.17 (Exh.38). Sajawal Khan-respondent also raised a similar plea of alibi while Ayoub-respondent claimed that he was a Preventive Officer in the Customs Department and at the relevant time he was in his office. The trial Court vide its judgment, dated 27-6-1994, after extensive review of the evidence found the charge established convicted the three accused-respondents under section 302(b), P.P.C. And imposed sentence of death on Altaf Hussain and life imprisonment on the remaining accused-respondents, as according to the trial Court, the deceased died due to the fire shots of Altaf Hussain. In addition, Altaf was directed to pay compensation of Rs,50,000 to the heirs of Shafqat Sultan deceased. As noted above, the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and acquitted all the accused. It believed the evidence of alibi.
5. In support of this appeal, it has been contended by Mr. M.A. Zafar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant, that the High Court has gravely erred in accepting the alibi of Altaf Hussain the only respondent against whom this appeal was being pressed. He has submitted that this plea was not raised at the earliest i.e, not before the Investigating Officer, not while cross-examining P.Ws. And not even pleaded in the statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. He has pointed out that this plea of Altaf is otherwise inconsistent as firstly he claimed that at the relevant time he was in the house of his sister Mst. Shahida, later on he claimed that he was being administered a drip by doctor Junaid Sarwar, D.W.17. He has read before us the statements of eye-witnesses namely, Sarwar Sultan, P.W.1, Mirza Khan, P.W.2 and Jehangir Khan, P.W.3. He has also urged that the High Court while holding that the empties were recovered from inside the Chamber of the learned Judge has disregarded the statement of Abdul Samad, P. W.9 who states that the empties were recovered from the floor of the Verandah outside the Chamber. He has highlighted that it was a gruesome murder right in the seat of justice and the accused acted wantonly and had created an atmosphere of fear for quite sometime. He has also urged that the eyewitnesses are credible enough and the convictions were rightly recorded by the trial Court.
6. Mr. Azizullah Sheikh, learned Advocate Supreme Court in defence of this appeal has cited before us Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11, Muhammad Nazir v.
Muhammad Ali and another 1986 SCM R 1441, Alam Khan v. Swans Khan and 3 others 1996 SCM R 1742 and Imran Hussain v. Amar Arshad and 2 others 1997 SCM R 438 to argue that this Court itself has laid down serious limitations upon itself in dealing with an appeal against acquittal. He has urged that possibility of a different conclusion alone is not enough to set aside a judgment of acquittal unless the same is shown to be shocking, perverse, ridiculous and artificial. He has next contended that conviction cannot be recorded for the reason of falsity of defence plea. According to him, even if Altaf's plea of alibi is rejected, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against him. By reading from different portions of the statements, he has tried to show that the conclusions drawn by the High Court are correct. He has also argued that admittedly P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are inimical, therefore, the Court must look for corroboration from an independent source which is lacking in this case.
7. Dr. Qazi Khalid Ali, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh appearing for respondent No,4/State has supported the appeal by adopting the arguments of Mr. M.A. Zafar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondents Nos.1 and 2.
8. There is no cudgel with the statement of law laid down in the stated judgments, as regards the scope of appeal against acquittal. Equally there is no dispute with the statement of law that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and cannot thrive on the weakness of the defence plea. By the laid down yardstick it is difficult to agree with Mr. Zafar that the impugned judgment of the High Court is either perverse or ridiculous or even shocking. One may tend to disagree with some of the reasons of the High Court but that alone is not enough to upset the judgment of acquittal. We are inclined to agree with Mr. Zafar that Altaf Hussain-respondent has not been able to establish his plea of alibi. The plea has been taken belatedly and it is inconsistent. We are not sure that the drip is administered to a patient of depression/hypertension as the defence witness claims. However, this finding will not improve the case of the appellant.
9. Enmity of the parties is admitted even in the F.I.R. The statements of the complainant and that of two of his servants cannot be relied upon without corroboration. No weapon of offence has been recovered in this case. The recovery of empties whether from inside or outside the Chambers of the learned Judge is immaterial as the prosecution has made no attempt to establish that the shots were fired from the weapon (kalashnikov) used by Altaf Hussain-respondent. There is no report of Ballistic Expert that the empties were fired from the kalashnikov. Even carrying of kalashnikov is not mentioned in the F.I.R. Motive in this case cannot be said to furnish corroboration as it is double- edged. Strained relations and inimical attitude while furnishing a basis for murder on the part of the accused can also be the basis for false involvement, by the complainant.
10. For the above reasons, it is held that the impugned judgment of the High Court calls for no interference. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.