Sagheer Ahmad Qadri, J.--Abdul Qayyum, Respondent No, 1 was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi in case FIR No, 127 dated 9.5,1996 under Section 302 PPC registered with Police Station Sadiqabad, Rawalpindi at the instance of Mst.Nusrat Ara, complainant/ petitioner for the murder of her husband Iftikhar Ahmed.
2. The learned trial Court on conclusion of the trial vide judgment dated 20.4.1999 acquitted Respondent No, 1 of the charge against him, extending him the benefit of doubt. Hence, this appeal against acquittal.
3. Main thrust of arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned trial Court in utter disregard of sufficient incriminating material on record has passed the impugned judgment and so it is a clear case of mis-reading and non-reading of the evidence. Further, contends that without any cogent reason the eye-witness PW-6 Mst. Nusrat Ara, complainant/petitioner as well as her brother PW-7 Abrar Ahmed were not trusted despite involving no major discrepancy coupled with medical evidence as well as recoveries. Learned counsel argued that the medical evidence fully corroborated the ocular account; that the learned trial Court acquitted Respondent No, 1 on the grounds that identity of accused was not known to the complainant PW-6 Mst. Nusrat Ara whereas she had seen the accused twice and also identified him in Court and that lack of motive or weak motive does not matter as it was a road rage case and that the defence could not brought on record any plausible defence. Learned counsel further argued that no enmity or mala fide could be brought of record to falsely involve Respondent No, 1 by the prosecution. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on Zakir Khan and others Vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1793), Abdur Rashid Vs. Umaid Ali and 2 others (PLD 1975 S.C. 227), Ali Muhammad and another Vs. The State (1985 SCMR 1834), Abdul Razzaque Vs. The State, (2003 P.Cr.L.J. 1256), Muhammad Akbar Vs. The State (1998 SCMR 2538), Manzoor alias Mujan and another Vs. The State (PLD 1979 Karachi 276), Allah Bakhsh and others Vs. The State (1976 P.Cr.L.J 1272). Prayed that this criminal appeal be accepted while setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing Respondent No, 1 while supporting the judgment of the learned trial Court has vehemently opposed this appeal on the grounds that the judgments passed by the learned trial Court is well reasoned; that there is no explanation as to how and when PW-6 Mst. Nusrat Ara, complainant/appellant came to know about the name and parentage of Respondent No, 1; that the learned trial Court did not believe the explanation given by PW-6 and PW-7 that the Accused-Respondent No, 1 himself told his name after causing blow to the deceased Iftikhar Ahmed and that people at the spot had told him about the name of the accused: PW-7 Ibrar Ahmed himself admitted in his statement that he after the occurrence for the first time saw the Accused-Respondent No, 1 in the Court premises which fact itself makes the story of the prosecution doubtful; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt; that there is a material contradictions in the statements of PW-6 M.st. Nusrat Ara and PW-7 Ibrar Ahmed about the occurrence and their presence at the spot. Same is the position of recovery of iron rod (P4) which was taken into possession after nine days of the occurrence and that too on the pointation of Respondent No, 1 from a public place i,e, Jahaz Ground. While relying on Muhammad Vs. The State (1989 P.Cr.L.J 834), All Sher Vs. The State (1985 P.Cr.L.J 1812), Arif Hussain and another Vs. The State (1983 SCMR 428), Abdul Wahab and another Vs. The State (1985 P.Cr.L.J 771), Ainir and another Vs. The State (1984 P.Cr.LJ 1182), Shamsherwan Vs. The State (1985 SCMR 34), Akhtar Gul alias Akhtari Vs. The State (1985 SCMR 233), The State Vs. Abba Ali Shah alias Abba Umer and another (PLD 1988 Karachi 409), Muhammad Afzal Vs. The State (1983 SCMR 1), Abdul Rehman and others Vs. The State (1983 SCMR 958) and Muhammad Shafi Vs. The State (PLD 1987 FSC 16).
5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General almost adopted the same arguments as agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. We have noted that the learned trial Court very properly took notice of the material discrepancies regarding the prosecution story. The prosecution case hinges upon PW-6 Mst. Nusrat Ara, complainant/ appellant and PW-7 Ibrar Ahmed, her real brother who is also the recovery witness. Admittedly there is a lot of improvements in the statements of these PWs. Mst. Nusrat Ara, complainant/PW-6 deposed that she mentioned in her statement (Exh.PC) that Respondent No, 1 abused her husband but it was not so recorded in the FIR (Exh.PC/1). Moreover when Respondent No, 1 allegedly was causing injuries to her deceased husband Iftikhar Ahmed she did not know his name, parentage, etc. The subsequent narration of his name, etc. by Respondent No, 1 himself in our view is not free from doubt for the reason that the said portion was not mentioned by PW-6 while recording her statement (Exh.PC) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-6 Ibrar Ahmed also did not mention in his statement that name and address was ever communicated by Respondent No, 1 in his presence. In cross-examination he admitted that he did not know personally Respondent No, 1 before the occurrence and that he later came to know from the people about the name and address of Respondent No,
1. He also did not mention the names of those persons. Thus from his statement it cannot be said that he supported the version of the complainant PW-6 Mst. Nusrat Ara. Similarly, the improvement with reference to sitting of Ibrar Ahmed PW-7 at a hotel and on the alarm of the PW-6 is somewhat an improved version on the part of the prosecution. So far as the medical evidence provided by PW-2 Dr.Tahir Rizvi and PW-8 Dr.Muhammad Ashraf who conducted the Medico legal as well as post-mortem examination of the deceased is concerned that also does not support the ocular account. As per prosecution Respondent No, 1 inflicted successive two iron blows on the head of the deceased is believed by the medical evidence. Injury No, 4 introduced by PW-8 Dr.Muhammad Ashraf is concerned he clearly deposed that the said injury was not the outcome of blow by an iron rod rather it is possible by fall or even during transportation of the deceased to the hospital.
8. Coming to the recoveries i,e, blood stained earth (Exh.PD) and iron rod (P4), the same do not advance the case of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever. Even otherwise if the recoveries are at all proved against the respondent the same would not be sufficient to connect him with the allegation of murder as the evidence of recoveries used for corroboration of the main allegation, which the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and what to say of these recoveries.
9. We have also taken note of the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that unless it can be shown that the judgment of the lower Court is perverse or that it is completely illegal and no other conclusion can be drawn except the guilt of the accused or there has been misreading of evidence resulting in mis-carriage of justice, the acquittal order cannot be interfered with whereby an accused earns double presumption of innocence. In this case the prosecution has not been able to bring on record adequate incriminating evidence to the extent of the respondents that may connect them with the crime.
10.In view of the above, we believe that the learned trial Court after applying its judicious mind acquitted the accused-respondent keeping in view the manner in which the alleged occurrence had been narrated by the prosecution. Therefore, we have not felt it necessary to have re- appraisal of the evidence in defence brought by the respondents in support of their version recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C.
11.Further-more, once a judgment of acquittal is passed by a competent Court of jurisdiction after proper and correct appraisal of evidence as held in Tariq Pervez Vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) the same cannot be interfered with merely on the ground that on re-analysis of the evidence another view could be taken.
12.Therefore, as a result of what has been discussed above, we find no merit in the appeal in hand, which is accordingly dismissed.