' Through this appeal a prayer has been made to set aside the judgment dated 14-2-2007 passed by the leamed Additional Sessions Judge, Pindi Bhattian, District Hafizabad whereby respondents Nos.l to 5 were acquitted of the charge. As a consequence of the said prayer the appellant prays for conviction of the said respondents under sections 302/148/149 and 109, P.P.C.
2. Briefly put, the facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that on the complaint of Muhammad Riaz -the appellant~a case F.I.R. No, 325 dated 10-6-2005 was registered at the Police Station Pindi Bhattian, District Hafizabad, in respect of offences under sections 302/ 148/149 and 109, P.P.C, against five unknown people. While putting the legal machinery into motion the appellant/complainant claimed that on the night between 8th/9th June, 2005, he along with his brother Mushtaq Ahmad (slain) had returned from Lahore to Pindi Bhattian by bus and set off to their village by a motorcycle at 1-30 a.m., which, however, broke down. Consequently, the complainant and his brother as claimed by the complainant, proceeded to their village on foot.
The complainant further claim that on their way to home they were ambushed and intercepted by five unknown people armed with various weapons including the firearms. The intruders/assailants,' according to the complainant, caused blunt weapon injuries to his brother i.e, Mushtaq Ahmad (deceased), who became unconscious and fell on the ground. However, due to the intervention of the eyewitnesses, who were attracted due to the complainant's yelling, the assailants fled from the spot, claims the appellant/ complainant. Interestingly enough, the complainant did not rush his brother Mushtaq Ahmad (deceased) to the hospital, who was incidentally shifted to the hospital in the morning.
' Anyhow, on the same day the complainant nominated all the respondents as the culprits of the crime. On the same date injured . Mushtaq Ahmad, the complainant's brother, succumbed to his injuries.
3. After due investigation the respondents were challaned and consequently indicted on the charge of murder. During the trial the prosecution relied upon different pieces of evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondents. In order to furnish the ocular evidence the prosecution produced Muhammad Riaz, the complainant (appellant herein), complainant as P.W.3, besides Nassar, who appeared as P.W.2. Besides, the ocular account the prosecution relied upon the pieces of evidence in the shape of Waj Tucker and extra-judicial confession made by Muhammad Azam, Shehbaz and Uaqat, respondents, before Sahib Khan, P.W.6 and Muhammad Nazir P.W. On the conclusion of the trial all the respondents were acquitted of the charge by the leamed trial Court.
4. In support of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned trial committed grave illegality while acquitting the respondents of the charge without appreciating the fact that the prosecution had proved its case against the respondents to the hilt and that the ocular evidence was duly supported by the other pieces of evidence including the medical evidence, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to give a clean chit to all the respondents.
5. Besides giving a patient hearing to the leamed counsel for the appellant we have gone through the impugned judgment with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant. Having done so, we find that admittedly Mushtaq Ahmed (deceased) was given blunt weapon injuries during the dead of night. The appellant/complainant claims that at the time of occurrence he and Muhammad Mushtaq (deceased) had been returning from Lahore to their village. He further claims that five unidentified people had caused blunt weapon injuries to his brother with the butts of their firearms besides giving staff (sic) blows to Mushtaq Ahmad (the deceased) but interestingly enough the complainant made no effort to shift his brother-who had received multiple and critical injuries on his person-to the hospital instantly rather he waited for break of dawn before carting his injured brother off to the hospital. During his cross- examination it came on the record that despite precarious condition of Mushtaq Ahmad no one including the complainant, who is real brother of the deceased and P.W.2, who is his friend, tried to rush him to the hospital till 5-45 a.m. During the trial it also came on the record that the facility of cycles, motorcycles, motorcycle rickshaws was available in the village and some of the inhabitants of the village had their cars as well but as mentioned above no one tried to arrange for the transport to cart the injured off for provision of his medical treatment, in time. The said conduct and version appears to be totally unnatural one. The said hilarious tale does not touch our judicial perception. The medical evidence also contradicts the ocular version inasmuch as at the time of getting Mushtaq Ahmad (deceased) medically examined, the history of patient was given as torture by dacoits. In the F.I.R, as well the identity of the accused/respondents was not disclosed by the complainant. However, on the same day the complainant made a supplementary statement and nominated all the respondents while assigning specific roles to them. The reason for the failure of the complainant/appellant to nominate the respondent in the F.I.R, was stated to be shock and depression of the complainant at the relevant time but the same does not appeal to reason especially when according to the prosecution the occurrence was witnessed by P.W.2 as well. The said witness could easily tell the names of the culprits to the complainant or the police at the time of lodging the F.I.R. The said aspect of the case makes the prosecution version doubtful rather unbelievable. In cases of duly witnessed crimes normally prosecution does not rely upon the circumstantial evidence, yet in this case the prosecution being conscious of the inherent infirmities in its case tried to shore-up its case by relying upon the evidence of abetment, extra-judicial confession and Waj Tucker witnesses, but the said pieces of A evidence were also discarded by the leamed trial Court by giving very sound and cogent reason. While acquitting the respondents the learned trial Court further noted and mentioned the contradictions between the statements of the witnesses. The motivating factor behind the occurrence was also discarded by the learned trial Court on the basis of very cogent and sound reasons. Therefore, we have come to a definite conclusion that the reasons advanced by the learned trial Court for disbelieving the prosecution witnesses are neither perverse nor arbitrary rather the same are very sound and justifiable.
6. More over, the principles for interference in the judgments of acquittal are quite different than those relating to the decision of appeals against conviction. It is a cardinal and celebrated principle of criminal jurisprudence that the presumption of innocence is attached to an accused.
Ordinarily an order of acquittal doubles the B initial presumption of innocence of an accused which would be stronger in case of verdict of acquittal recorded by a Court of record. The appellate Court would not interfere in the judgment of acquittal until and unless it is conclusively shown/ established that the judgment of the acquittal was based upon artificial, perverse and fanciful reasoning. Reliance in this regard is placed upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of The State through A.G. N.-W.F.P. v. Mehmood Khan and others 2007 SCM R 1390. Applying the litmus test laid down in the above-mentioned judgment and the earlier judgments of the apex Court on the same subject, we have concluded that while acquitting the said respondents, the learned trial Court did not commit any illegality. The learned counsel has failed to convince us that the impugned judgment is based upon arbitrary, fanciful, artificial or perverse reasoning. Similarly, he has failed to make us believe that the impugned C judgment is based upon misreading or non- reading of evidence justifying any interference by this Court. Moreover, no illegality in approach or irregularity in the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court could be pointed out by him.
7. To put into a nutshell, this appeal has been found to be meritless and the same D is, therefore, dismissed in limine.