' ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J.--- The story as it goes in the F.I.R. No,329 of 2005, registered under sections 302/324/148/149/109, P.P.C. At Police Station Minchinabad, is primarily relatable to a dispute of landed property which the mother of Muhammad Siddique, complainant had inherited and the accused party allegedly wanted her to relinquish the same in lieu of some other land because of its contiguity with their houses. As the alleged desire did not mature, the occurrence took place at the instigation of one Muhammad Iqbal who had allegedly hatched a conspiracy a little before the occurrence. The witnesses of the conspiracy were also cited by the prosecution. As per the ocular occurrence which took place on 25-1-2005 at 1-00 p.m. It is stated that Muhammad Siddique deceased complainant along with Muhammad Hassan and Said Muhammad deceased went to the aforesaid land and as they had just started sowing seeds for what crop, suddenly Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Mansha, armed with hatchets and accompanied by seven co-accused who were also armed with deadly weapons arrived at the spot in prosecution of their common object by forming an unlawful assembly and raising "Lalkaras". Muhammad Zaman, co-accused gave a hatchet blow on the head of Said Muhammad, then Muhammad Khan and Mazhar accused launched similar blows on the head of Muhammad Hassan. The accused, Muhammad Akram gave a blow with iron rod on the face of Muhammad Siddique, complainant who incidentally was also brother of the said Muhammad Hassan. This injury caused the breakage of the tooth of the victim. Muhammad Zafar cause injuries with "Sotas" on the left hand, ribs and right shoulder of Muhammad Hassan. Among the other accused persons Muhammad Azhar, Muhammad Saleem, Muhammad Akram, Ghulam Rasool etc. Alsp gave blows and injuries to various persons of the complainant party, the details whereof are given in the F.I.R.
2. The noise and hue and cry was natural corollary of the occurrence which attracted Mst. Sardaran Bibi, Muhammad Anwar and Matloob Ahmed, P. Ws. At the spot. This situation further aggravated when hatchet blows were given on the head and other parts of body of Mst. Sardaran Bibi and Mursleen. Many other details of the attack and injuries are given in the F.I.R. Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Yaqub, P.Ws. Along with other, persons from the locality also came to the spot and allegedly witnessed the occurrence.
3. After the submission of the challan the accused were tried on the basis of the prosecution evidence and the trial' ultimately culminated in conviction of various accused while Ghulam Rasool, Muhammad Mansha and Muhammad Iqbal, respondents were acquitted of the charge.
This acquittal has been challenged through the instant appeal under section 417(2) of the Cr.P.C.
With a prayer to convict and sentence the aforesaid three respondents.
4. The prosecution produced as many as 16 witnesses in support cf its case. In their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. The accused adopted the plea of self-defence. The complaint was recorded on the statement of Muhammad Siddique in the hospital on the day of occurrence who subsequently expired. The investigation was carried out by Mahboob Alam, S.-I. Who appeared as P.W.13 and deposed about the details of the measures taken by him in relation to the investigation.
Besides the ocular account of the occurrence the medical evidence and the evidence in relation to the recoveries etc. Was also produced by the prosecution. Some evidence relating to formal aspects of the case was also recorded in this case.
5. The main emphasis of the learned counsel for the appellant has been on the fact that the injured P.Ws. Had fully and properly supported the prosecution version and direct evidence was available even against the acquitted accused because of which the learned trial Court had no lawful opportunity to exonerate them of the charge against them. It was also argued that the parties having old acquaintance with each other the question of identification was beyond any doubt especially when the occurrence had also taken in day time. The nomination of the acquitted respondents Nos.1 to 3 as assailants in a promptly lodged F.I.R. With specific role along with other co-accused has been made the basis for seeking their conviction by the learned counsel for the appellant. It has vehemently been argued that the learned trial Court while convicting the other accused on the charge of murder had accepted the prosecution version in totality and discarded the defence plea which had left no occasion for the acquittal of the three respondents. According to the learned counsel, the allegation of abetment was part and parcel of the F.I.R. And having been duly supported by the evidence produced by the prosecution the respondents could not be let evade their responsibility under section 302 read with section 109, P.P.C. Because Abdul Khaliq and Ahmed Yar had not only witnessed the act of abetment and conspiracy but had also recorded their depositions before the Court in this behalf. The learned counsel then forcefully argued that the police had recovered the weapons of offence from respondents Nos.1 and 2 which recoveries were sufficient to connect them with the commission of the offence.
6. As against it the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that baseless allegation of abetment and instigation has been levelled against Muhammad Iqbal who admittedly had not taken any active part in the occurrence nor was present at the spot at the relevant time. He referred to the long standing enmity with Abdul Khaliq, P.W.6 who had allegedly overheard the conspiracy and argued that in the wake of such enmity it could have simply been foolish and thus, shows improvements on the part of Muhammad Iqbal to hatch the conspiracy in the presence of his established enmity. The learned counsel then took the Court through the relevant record to show that not only the allegation of abetment was baseless but the requisite corroboration was also missing against all the respondents.
7. So far as Muhammad Iqbal, respondent is concerned, he is accused of abetment and instigation for the alleged offence but it is to be noted with concern that initially two persons namely, Abdul Khaliq and Ahmed Yar were named as witnesses for the conspiracy but then only Abdul Khaliq was produced as P.W.6 while Ahmed Yar was given up. As to Abdul Khaliq it is evident from the record that he had an established history of enmity with Muhammad Iqbal which had its origin in the civil and criminal litigation. The enmity between them was an open reality and not a matter of secrecy for anybody. Ahmed Yar having been given up there was no corroboration to the statement of Abdul Khaliq and in the wake of previous enmity no occasion was left to believe his statement against Muhammad Iqbal. The evidence of Abdul Khaliq was, therefore, rightly discarded by the learned trial Court and that having been done there was no material at all available on record for the conviction of Muhammad Iqbal. He was thus, rightly acquitted of the charge by extending the beneits of doubt.
8. So far as Muhammad Mansha accused is concerned, he did notI cause any injury to the deceased. The allegation against him is that he gave hatchet blows on the head of Mst. Sardaran Bibi but this aspect of the allegation and ocular account is in conflict with the medical evidence B which provides that all the injuries on the person of Mst. Sardaran Bibi were caused by blunt, weapon. There is no clarification at all as to whether the hatchet for such injuries was used from wrong side and in such a situation the learned trial Court was justified to draw the presumption that the spirit of the prosecution evidence was that the hatchet had been used from the right side but this having not been supported by the medical evidence, the finding of the learned trial Court regarding the benefit of doubt in favour of Mansha is based on sound reasons. Accordingly his acquittal was based on well-founded reasons.
9. Regarding Ghulam Rasool, respondent, the allegation was that he caused injuries with hatchet on the back of left hand of Said Muhammad deceased and the little finger of his right hand. Firstly, both these seats of injuries are the non-vital parts of the body. Secondly, Ghulam Rasool accused belonged to a place known as Mauza Shamoo Saboka which was situated at a considerable long distance from the place of occurrence. He is also son-in-law of Muhammad Zaman, accused and the record does not at all reveal that he had any concern with the property in dispute of the parties.
Keeping in view the nature of the injuries attributed to them the existence of other probabilities cannot be ruled out in which even in normal course of the occurrence these injuries could be the result of a situation not attributable to Ghulam Rasool. I find myself perfectly in agreement with the view of the learned trial Court that the allegation of Mst. Sardaran Bibi against Ghulam Rasool for causing hatchet injury to the deceased is an afterthought event and an improvement aimed at covering the lacunas in the prosecution case which needed to be explained in contradistinction with the description of injuries as given in the F.I.R. The hatchet is stated to have been recovered from Ghulam Rasool but merely on the basis of such recovery the sentence of conviction cannot be validly recorded against him because it is well-settled law that the recovery by itself does not constitute substantial evidence. The dictum laid .Down in the case of Ali Muhammad v. Bashir Ahmed and others 2003 SCM R 868 can be safely relied upon in favour of the proposition that recovery of weapon of offence by itself without any other corroborative evidence especially when the other cognate factors also do not support the point at issue, is not a substantial piece of evidence. The learned trial Court was, therefore, justified to conclude that the involvement of Ghulam Rasool in the occurrence was also doubtful, the benefit of which was, therefore, rightly extended to him.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that the findings of the learned trial Court insofar as the acquittal of the three respondents, namely, Ghulam Rasool, Muhammad Mansha and Muhammad Iqbal are concerned, are unexceptionable and no interference is required either by facts or by law.
This appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed.