' MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.---Lal Muhammad son of Kabeera, appellant herein, impugned the judgments dated 30th April, 2008 and 26th November, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barkhan at Rakhni, whereby private respondents, Abdullah son of Muhammad Din and Lal Muhammad alias Laloo son of Ahmed, were acquitted of the charge under section 302 read with sections 147, 148 and 149 of the P.P.C. Since the Criminal Acquittal Appeal No,97 of 2008 and Criminal Acquittal Appeal No,362 of 2008 are outcome of one and same incident and that the above named respondents have been acquitted of the charge one after the other, thus, we proposes to decide the same through this common judgment.
2. This controversy arose out of an F.I.R. No,12 of 2007 (Exh.P/5-B), under section 302 read with sections 147, 148 and 149 of the P.P.C., registered with Levies Station, Rakhni on 15th May, 2007, regarding an incident, whose date was mentioned as 15th May, 2007 at 2-00 p.m. This information was recorded on the statement of P.W.1 Lal Muhammad. The informant disclosed that, on the fateful day, his son Jehangir, Anwar Jan, Lal Baig along with so many others were chasing the culprits, who had forcibly snatched the tractor of one Mian Khan Selachi. When they reached near Darmiani Basti, meanwhile Amanullah, Naseebullah, Abdullah, Muhammad Jan, Muhammad Khan, Lal Muhammad and Pathan started firing with Kalashnikov, resulting into the death of his son Jehangir. The motive behind the occurrence was the court-marriage of appellant's son Din Muhammad with the daughter of accused Amanullah.
3. After usual investigation, the challans were submitted before the trial Court, where separate charges were framed against the accused/respondents, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the accusation and bring home the charge, the prosecution produced and examined seven witnesses. P.W.1 Lal Muhammad is complainant of the case, who brought on record his written report as Exh.P/1-A, P.W.2 Lal Baig and P.W.3 Anwar Jan are the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence, who were accompanying the deceased at the time of incident. P.W.4 Rehmatan is the recovery witness of blood-stained earth and clothes of the deceased. P.W.6 Dr. Muhammad Sadiq is Medical Officer, who examined the dead body of the deceased and issued Medico Legal Certificate Exh.P/6-A, whereas P.W.5 Muhammad Khan and P.W.7 Muhammad Tariq are the Investigating Officers of the case.
5. When examined under section 342 of the Cr.P.C., the accused/respondents in reply to a question "Do you want to say anything else?" stated that "we are innocent, we have not committed any offence whatsoever and have been involved in the instant case due to enmity." They did not opt to record their statements on oath under section 340(2) of the Cr.P.C., however, accused Abdullah produced DW-1 Dr. Sher Zaman in his defence.
6. After conclusion of the trial and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the accused/respondents were acquitted of the charge one after the other through separate judgments, as initially accused Abdullah faced the trial and acquitted of the charge and, subsequently, accused Lal Muhammad, hence these appeals.
7. Mr. Ali Ahmed Lehri, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the respondents are the real culprits and they have been wrongly let off by the trial Court and the acquittal orders have illegally been passed. It was also argued that the occurrence had taken place in broad-daylight and there was no question of mistaken identity at all. The ocular account furnished by the eye- witnesses was fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the trial Court wrongly discarded the same.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Wahid Yousafzai, learned counsel for the accused/respondents and Haji Liaquat Ali, Advocate, representing the State, have opposed the arguments so advanced and supported the impugned acquittal orders, on the ground that nothing material has brought on record, which could suggest the involvement of accused/ respondents in the commission of the offence, thus, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents, which does not call for any interference.
9. We have gone through the whole evidence with the valuable assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The connection of the respondents is sought to be established with the crime in question by the evidence of P.W.2 Lal Baig and P.W.3 Anwar Jan, who had deposed that deceased was shot dead by the absconding accused Amanullah. We have noted that, in the F.I.R. Eight accused persons, namely, Abdullah, Amanullah, Naseebullah, Nasrullah, Muhammad Jan, Muhammad Khan, Lal Muhammad and Pathan were nominated but the role of fatal firing was attributed to the absconding accused Amanullah. In this regard, we are of the view that in present days' society, it has been noticed in most of cases that witnesses of the complainant party always throw net very wide to implicate a large number of actual culprits' family and due to this phenomenon, burden of Court in administering criminal justice has arisen and Courts have to sift chaff from grain. It would also be relevant to mention here that no recovery of crime weapons has been effected from the possession of the respondents, either to substantiate the allegations or corroborate the ocular account, furnished by the highly interested witnesses.
10. Admittedly, the superior Courts can interfere in the acquittal order, but Courts apply extra caution while exercising with the appeals against an acquittal. There is a marked difference between the standards that the appellate Courts maintain while hearing appeals against acquittal and appeals against conviction. Normally, the superior Courts interfere in acquittal appeals, when it is found that:
(ii) (i) When reappraisal of evidence shows any manifest wrong, perversity, or uncalled for conclusion from facts proved on record;
(iii) When the findings arrived at by trial Court are wholly artificial, shocking and ridiculous;
(iv) When material evidence has been disregarded;
(v) When material evidence has been misread blatantly to an extent that miscarriage of justice has been occasioned.
(vi) When evidence has been brought on record illegally;
11. The record is indicative of the fact that extensive firing was alleged to eight accused persons, but only four empties were secured from the place of occurrence, meaning thereby either the assailant was one or the witnesses had not seen the occurrence. Thus, the benefit of doubt was rightly extended to the respondents in their acquittal, because the rule of benefit of doubt, which was described as golden rule, was essentially a rule of prudence which could not be ignored. While dispensing justice in accordance with law, said rule was based on the maxim:-- "It was better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted, care should be taken by Court in convicting an accused."
' For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in the findings and conclusions arrived at by Additional Sessions Judge, Barkhan at Rakhni in Crime No,12 of 2007 through its judgments dated 30th April, 2008 and 26th November, 2008, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge. Resultantly, both the criminal. Acquittal appeals are dismissed, being meritless.