1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This appeal by Abdur Rashid is by right under the Constitution. The appellant was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, but on a State appeal has been convicted and sentenced to transportation for life by the High Court under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for stabbing to death one Enayatur Rehman, 17/18 years' old, with a knife.
2. The occurrence took place on 5-9-1965 at about 8 p.m. In the hujra of Lala Khel tribe in village Gojra. The southern gate of the hujra opens into a bazar and there was at the relevant time an electric bulb of 100 candle power burning at the gate.
3. On the south-west corner inside this gate P. W. 3, Chanan Khan had a hotel which was open at the time and an electric light was burning in it. Just before the occurrence there was a gathering of Jirga in the hujra and P. W. 4, Pir Muhammad, who participated in the Jirga, remained there and smoked `Chillam' on the platform of the `hujra'. Enayatur Rahman came to the said hotel and after having smoked Chillam came out of the hotel and started going to the interior of the hujra when the appellant entered the hujra from the southern gate and asked the former to halt. Enayatur Rehman stopped and the appellant Went up to the former and plunged a knife into his chest. The medical evidence discloses inter alia, an incised wound, 1--" x1--" x cavity deep on the front part of the chest which injured, the sternum and right lung and completely cut the aorta. To resume the prosecution case, the appellant ran to the northern side of the hujra and got up the platform and then jumped down towards the bazar on the northern side of the hujra. The injured Enayatur Rahman tried in vain to pursue the appellant and having reached the steps of the platform collapsed there and succumbed to his injuries. P. Ws. Chanan Khan and Pir Muhammad witnessed the occurrence, and went up to the victim and found him dead. P. W. Channan raised an alarm and said that the appellant had killed the deceased. This attracted among others, P. W. 7, Gohar Rahman, a relation of the deceased, and he informed P. W. 1, Fazlur Rahman, father of the deceased and the latter rushed to the spot and saw P. Ws. Chanan Khan and Pir Muhammad there. The last named told P. W. Fazlur Rahman that the deceased had been stabbed by the appellant. P. W. Fazlur Rahman went to Turbela Police Station and lodged a First Information Report at 9 p.m.
4. P. W. 11, Sub-Inspector Fazal Dad arrived at the spot at about 11 o'clock the same night and found the hotel of P. W. Chanan Khan open and an electric bulb of 25 watt. Burning in it. This light illumined a part of the courtyard of the hujra of Lala Khel including the spot where the deceased had been stabbed. The Sub-Inspector also found a 100 watt. Bulb Exh. P. 1 in the door frame of the southern gate of the hujra. This bulb was duly seized in the presence of P. Ws. Chanan and Pir Muhammad. The site plan Exh. P. D. Prepared on the next day by the S. I. Mentions the said hotel, and the spot where the deceased was stabbed and the place wherefrom P. Ws. Chanan Khan and Pir Muhammad witnessed the occurrence. Blood-stained earth was seized from near the steps of the platfrom in the hujra.
5. The appellant denied the charge and stated that he was falsely implicated due to enmity with P.
6. Ws. Chanan Khan and Pir Mohammad particularly with the former, over the marriage of his sister with one Aslam who was dead, because he was a Gujjar and she was a Pathan. The said Aslam was a relative of the appellant whose father is the head of Gujjar caste. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the defence.
7. We agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the offence has been brought home to the appellant. The prosecution has succeeded in proving its case by reliable evidence. The presence of the two eye-witnesses, P. Ws. 3 and 4 can hardly be doubted. So far as P. W. 3 is concerned, he is a natural witness having had his hotel there which the Sub-Inspector P. W. 14 found open at the time and in the light of 25 watt. Bulb burning there. He has no relationship and no enmity with either party. Merely because the informant, P. W. 1, mentioned the presence of P. W. 3 at the spot but did not say in his First Information Report that he heard about the occurrence from P.
8. W. 3, and that P. W. 3 spoke of two electric lights burning in his hotel instead of one are no valid reasons for disbelieving him. The presence of P. W. 3 was natural and has been proved by other reliable evidence. The existence of at least one electric light in his hotel has been established by the evidence of the Station House Officer (P. W. 11). Having regard to the nature of injuries on the deceased it seems that there was more internal hem--orrhage than external and the absence of blood at the spot where he was first attacked or any trail from there to the place where he actually collapsed do not falsify the witness. It is not unlikely that the shirt which the deceased had on his person soaked the blood and prevented it from falling on the ground until he collapsed on the steps of the platform. The medical evidence is not inconsistent and does not preclude the possibility of the deceased having run to a distance of 38 feet. Similarly P. W. 4 is neither related to nor inimical to either party. His presence is not doubted by the trial Court and yet the Court discarded his evidence on the ground that 14/15 years ago he was involved in an occurrence in which he broke the teeth of one Ghulam Sarwar a first cousin of the appellant's father. The occurrence had taken place over the marriage of a sister of P. W. Chanan Khan, a Pathan, with one Aslam, a Gujjar by caste. This Aslam was a son of a lady first cousin of the said Ghulam Sarwar and he was dead at the time the appellant made his statement under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court has rightly observed that the idea of ill-feeling is a far-fetched one and does not furnish a cogent reason for P. W. 4 to falsely implicate the appellant in a murder case.
9. The evidence of these two eye-witnesses have received ample support from the evidence of the Sub-Inspector as well as the seizure of a 100 watt. Bulb from the door frame of the southern gate of the hujra. That there was some sort of gathering in the hujra on the night of occurrence has received support from the evidence of P. W.
5. Major Abdul Latif. That being so it was natural and probable that there should be light in the hujra and this light, according to the evidence, is the extension of electric light from a nearby shop. The seizure on that very night of a 100 watt. Bulb from the door frame of the southern gate of the hujra has fully proved the existence of the light at the time of the occurrence.
10. C. W. Shamas Gut is closely related to the appellant as a daughter of a maternal aunt of Shamas Gut is wife of father of the appellant. He admitted that whenever a Jirga or some other ceremony was to be performed in the hujra of Lala Khels, some one would ask for an electric connection from his shop for illumining the hujra. He, however, added that on the night of occurrence he had closed the shop at 6 p.m. He admitted in cross-examination "It is correct that after the commission of the offence when the police came to the spot for investigation, the relative of the deceased sent a man after my younger brother and when my younger brother appeared before him, he requested him to give him electric connection for illumining the hujra as it was dark and as the Investigating Officer felt difficulties in inspecting the spot. It is correct that my younger brother accepted the request and gave an electric connection from my shop on that night."
11. The Investigating Officer, however, was not asked any ques--tion about this at all. Similarly, C. W. 2 said "It is correct that on occasions the Lala Khels used to borrow an electric extension from my shop for illumining the interior of the hujra" but added that on the night of occurrence no one borrowed such light. The evidence of these two Court witnesses, besides being not con--vincing by themselves, lend corroboration to the prosecution evidence that there was in fact a light burning in the door frame of the Southern gate at the time of occurrence. In these facts and circumstances the High Court had good reasons and acted on recognised principles in preferring to accept the prosecution evidence. The existence of this light having been established there was no doubt about the recognition of the appellant by P. W. 4, Pir Muhammad.
12. So far as the recognition of P. W. Chanan Khan is con--cerned, even without this light at the southern gate he could recognise the assailant of the deceased. This is borne out by the inspection note of the Sessions Judge himself.
13. The principles applicable to an appeal under section 417 Cr. P. C. By the State are that acquittal does not weaken the presumption of innocence of the accused and that the High Court should give due weight to the opinion of the Sessions Judge, Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned above we have no doubt that the High Court in disagreeing with the findings of the trial Court and setting aside the order of acquittal was fully conscious of these principles. The High Court gave cogent reasons based on correct principles relating to appreciation of the evidence. On the contrary the learned Sessions Judge evidently acted unreasonably and against recognised principles governing the appreciation of evidence in discarding the evidence of the two eye-witnesses. It is profitable to reproduce here the following observations of the Supreme Court in PLD 1969 SC 398 :- "The view expressed by the learned Judges that High Court will interfere with an order of acquittal only if the appreciation of evidence by the trial Judge is perverse or foolish is not correct. The State has under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the right to appeal from an order of acquittal both on facts and law. It is, therefore, not permis--sible to read into section 417 the words of limitation employed by the learned Judges. A practice has, however, grown that a Court of appeal will not interfere with an order of acquittal if the evidence is open to the view formed by the trial Court. In other words the order of acquittal will not be set aside on the ground of appreciation of evidence alone. But if the reasons given by the trial Judge are of speculative and artificial nature or the findings recorded by him are based on no evidence or misinterpretation of evidence or the conclusions drawn by him about the guilt or innocence of the accused person are perverse or foolish resulting in miscarriage of justice the Court of appeal will in such a case re-examine the evidence and draw its own conclusions from it."