'JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J.---This Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed against judgment dated 24-11-2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Quetta, whereby accused/ respondents were acquitted of the charge.
2. Facts, in brief, are that a case vide crime No, 13 of 2006 dated 27-12-2006, offence under section 302 read with sections 147, 148, 149 and 34, P.P.C. Was registered by the levies officials of Washuk on the report of one Liaquat Ali.
'It was alleged by complainant that on 27-12-2006 at about 7-00 p.m. He was going from Bazaar towards his house situated at Killi Mehnat, in the way Abdul Rahim informed him that Muhammad Islam was injured by accused persons Abdul Rehman, Munir Ahmed, Muhammad Anwar, Shakirullah, Sabrullah, Rehmatullah, Muhammad Hanif and Idrees by means of firing with Kalashnikov. He, along with Abdul Rahim, rushed to the place of occurrence, where he found Muhammad Islam lying in pool of blood, who was shifted to Hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries.
3. After investigation, challan was prepared and initially sent to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kharan, wherefrom it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Quetta by the order of this Court. After framing charge and examining the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court acquitted the respondents, hence this appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Mehmood Sadiq Khokhar, learned counsel for appellant and have gone through record annexed with appeal as well as impugned judgment.
5. Bare perusal of the record is indicative of the fact that complainant Liaquat Ali (P.W.1) is not an eye witness of the incident and, admittedly, he was informed by P.W.6 Abdul Rahim about the incident, who in his Court-statement has not given any specific role of firing by the accused/respondents and has deposed that absconding accused Muhammad Anwar, who was having Kalashnikov in his hand, made firing upon the deceased.
'Similarly, P. W.2 Jaffar and P. W.8 Niamatullah, who alleged to have witnessed the incident, have deposed nothing material against accused/ respondents and have stated that due to firing of absconding accused Muhammad Anwar by means of Kalashnikov, Muhammad Islam sustained injuries and later on expired.
6. The Medical. Officer appeared as P.W.3 and said that he had examined the deceased Muhammad Islam and has issued death certificate Exh.P/3-A. Whereas, P.W.4 Hobiyar is witness to the recovery of one LMG Rifle as well as motorcycles, alleged to have been recovered from the houses of co-accused Abdul Rehman, accused/respondent Sabrullah and co-accused Abbas, which piece of evidence is not useful for the prosecution against the accused/respondents, because flab prosecution story is silent regarding use of said recovered LMG rifle or motorcycle in the commission of crime.
'P. W.5 Abdul Rashid has only deposed that on 27-12-2006 at Washuk Bazaar, deceased had sustained bullet injury and in his presence, Investigating Officer examined the injured, collected one empty shell of Kalashnikov from the place of occurrence and in hospital, the dead body of deceased was handed over to complainant. P.W.7 Mushtaq Ahmed, Naib Tehsildar, is investigating officer and has deposed to the extent of investigation carried out by him.
7. From overall assessm ent of the prosecution evidence, no incriminating material has come on record, which could connect accused/respondents with the commission of crime, because none of the eye-witnesses have assigned any specific role of firing by the respondents upon the deceased and the entire prosecution evidence is surrounding against absconding A accused. If presence of respondents is believed, even then mere presence of accused/respondents at the spot does not constitute any offence, particularly when no recovery of crime weapon was effected from the possession of accused/ respondents, nor the version of complainant has been supported by any other sort of independent evidence.
8. The prosecution has failed to collect any material during course of investigation against accused/respondents, showing their common object in the B commission of crime, nor has proved any of the respondents to be members of an unlawful assembly.
9. Furthermore, record shows that the complainant has not approached the Court with clean hands, as he as well as other eyewitnesses mustered the courage of implicating nine persons for a single casualty, therefore, in such circumstances, false implication of the accused/respondents cannot be ruled out. In this regard, we may place reliance on the judgment-reported in 2001 SCM R 25(b), relevant portion thereof is reproduced herein below: "In the face of medico-legal opinion evidence of witnesses is hardly capable of reconciliation and casts serious doubts as to the truth of the version of the eyewitnesses who had implicated as many as five persons in the occurrence of whom three were acquitted by the trial Court for want of any evidence against them. Learned counsel for the respondent attempt to argue that in the event of any discrepancy ocular version ought to be preferred but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecution did not approach the Court with clean hands as the complainant as well as the witnesses mustered the courage of implicating as many as five persons for a single casualty. This aspect of the case strongly militates against the bona fides of the prosecution version. It is ironical to notice that with the deteriorating of values and standards in society, there has been a growing tendency to rope as many as members of the family of an accused as possible. This practice often leads to the acquittal of the real culprit as well in view of exaggeration and concoction of the prosecution case, which must be deprecated."
10. Above all, acquittal always carries double presumptions of innocence in favour of accused and the principle of appreciation of evidence in appeal against acquittal is altogether different from that of conviction and the courts are always reluctant to D interfere in the judgment of acquittal, unless and until it is shown that the same is perverse, ridiculous and shocking or the trial Court had not taken into consideration any material evidence having direct bearing on the case. Merely, because after re appraising of evidence another view is also possible from the evidence on record is not sufficient to disturb the findings of acquittal arrived at by the trial Court, provided both the conclusions are equally possible and probable. In present case, counsel for appellant has failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, misreading or non- reading of evidence in the impugned judgment, warranting us to interfere.
11. Thus, after having gone through the evidence and above settled principle of law, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned acquittal order, as such appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine.
'There are the reasons of our short order dated 23-12-2009 announced in the open Court.