' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, J.--- The respondents Muhammad Iqbal, Rashid Ahmad, Sajid alias Raja, Sadiq and Khurshid Ahmad were tried in case F.I.R. No,227 of 1993 dated 29-10-1993, for the offences under section 302, 364, 337-A, 149 and 149 of P.P.C., Police Station Qadirpur Raan, District Multan. Mian Jahangir, learned Sessions Judge, Multan, vide his judgment dated 14-5-1994 acquitted all the aforementioned accused persons.
2. Criminal Appeal No,173 of 1994 filed by The State and Criminal, Revision No,110 of 1994 filed by Suleman, the complainant of the case against the acquittal of Muhammad Iqbal, Rashid Ahmad, Sajid alias Raja, Sadiq and Khurshid Ahmad, shall be decided through this single judgment.
3. During pendency of this appeal Muhammad Iqbal son of Zahore Ahmad, respondent No,1 died on 25-2-2005. In this regard CPO, Multan submitted report along with original death certificate of Muhammad Iqbal son of Zahore Alimad, respondent No,1, so this appeal against acquittal to the extent of Muhammad Iqbal son of Zahore Ahmad has become infructuous and stands abated.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 29-10-1993 at about 9.45 a.m., Muhammad Suleman and Usman Khan, real brothers, resident of Village Luther, went from their house to the Dera of Dost Muhammad to make a telephone call. At the door of the Dera, Bhawan Shah met to Usman Khan and they started talking with each other, while Muhammad Suleman went inside the Dera and he had hardly made a telephone call, when he came back on the road on hearing hue and cry of Usman Khan. He saw that Khurshid Ahmad and Muhammad Iqbal armed with pistols, Rashid Ahmad armed with gun, Sadiq and Raja armed with Sotas were dragging Usman Khan and Bhawan Shah towards the Dera of Lambardaran situated in front of Dera of Dost Muhammad. The assailants were also giving kick and fist blows to Usman Khan and Bhawan Shah.
On hearing his noise, Muhammad Zaman, who was sitting inside the Dera of Dost Muhammad also attracted to the spot. Accused persons took Usman Khan and Bhawan Shah in a KOTHA of Dera of Lambardaran and Khurshid, accused in presence of Muhammad Suleman, Muhammad Zaman and Bhawan Shah fired with .12-bore gun on Usman Khan, who after sustaining the injury became unconscious and the blood started oozing. When Muhammad Suleman stepped forward to rescue his brother, accused Raja inflicted a SOTA blow and pushed back Muhammad Suleman. When the blood was oozing from the injury sustained by Usman Khan, accused took Usman Khan and Bhawan Shah and threw them on the road in senseless condition, while they along with their weapons hide themselves inside the house.
5. Motive behind the occurrence was that Iqbal alias Balu accused, nephew of Khurshid accused, had injured Ehsan Ahmad, due to which case bearing F.I.R. No,198 of 1993 was registered at Police Station Qadir Pur Raan and Usman Khan was a witness in the said case. When there was a pressure for compromise from the brotherhood, Usman Khan strongly opposed the family of Lambardaran which annoyed the family of Lambardaran. So, in order to take the revenge of their insult, the accused persons committed the murder of Usman Khan.
6. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared and submitted before the learned trial court for trial. Charge against the accused persons was framed to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as Eleven (11) P.Ws. And two (2) C.Ws.
P.W.1 Amir Muhammad FC No,572 transmitted ' the sealed parcel, said to contain blood-stained earth, to office of Chemical Examiner, P. W.2 Tasawar Hussain, FC No,470 escorted the dead body to mortuary for autopsy.
P. W.3 Dr. Aftab Ahmad, Medical Officer, Nishtar Hospital, Multan medically examined Bhawan Shah and found the following injuries on his person.
(i) A lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep over the right temporal region 10 cm abo-ve the right ear.
(ii) A rounded swelling of 2 cm diameter over the right cheek.
' Duration of the injuries was one to two hours and both injuries were inflicted by blunt weapon.
P.W.4 Dr. Muhammad Altaf Hussain, SMO, Civil Hospital, Multan conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Usman Khan and found the following injuries on his person.
(i) A lacerated wound of firearm entry Injury 5 cm x 4-1/2 cm with blackening inverted edges at the front and slightly medial aspect of right knee joint 4-5 O'clock position with a lacerated wound of fire-arm exit 8 cm x 5 cm with the averted soft tissues edges at the back of right knee joint.
(ii) A lacerated wound 3-1/4 cm x 1 cm at the front of left leg about in middle part in vertical position on tibial border.
' Death in this case was occurred due to haemorrhage and shock caused by injury No,1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time between injuries and death was about one hour or so and time between death and post mortem examination was within six hours. P. W.5 Khizar Hayat witnessed the proceeding of collecting the blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence vide recovery memo Exh.PE.
P. W. 6 Umar Hayat identified the dead body of Usman Khan before the post mortem examination.
P. W.7 Shaukat Hayat, Draftsman prepared the site plan in triplicate on the pointation of P.Ws.
P. W.8 Qaiser Abbas Head Constable No,1209 kept sealed parcel, said to contain blood-stained earth, in the Malakhana for safe custody and handed over the same of Amir Muhammad, Constable for its onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore.
P. W. 9 Muhammad Suleman, complainant supported the prosecution version.
P. W.10 Bhawan Shah, eye-witness of the occurrence deposed in support of prosecution story. P. W.11 Nazir. Ahmad, Inspector/SHO deposed about the steps of investigation of this case. C. W.1 Dr. Waseem Abbas Zaidi, Mecical Officer, Civil Hospital, Multan medically examine Khurshid Ahmad and found the following injury on his person.
(i) Fire-arm lacerated wound 14cm x 10cm x muscle deep on back of mid of right leg (calf region) blackening on upper part of wound present). It was caused by fire-arm and probable duration was within 8 to 12 hours. C.W.2 Dr. Ghazanfar Abbas, RMO Ward No,9, Nishtar Hospital, Multan produced the record of Khurshid Ahmad, who remained admitted in the hospital from 30-10-1993 to 4-11-1993,
7. The Deputy District Attorney gave up Muhammad Zaman, Muhammad Aslam and Hajj Faiz Bakhsh P.Ws. As being unnecessary and after tendering in evidence the report of Chemical Examiner, Exh.PX and report of Serologist, Exh.PY, closed the prosecution case.
8. After recording the prosecution evidence, the respondents were examined under section 342 of Cr.P.C. Wherein they stated that they did not want to appear and depose on oath as required under section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. In disproof of the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution. In reply to the question that why this case is against you and why the P.Ws. Have deposed against you, respondent Khurshid replied as under:-- "Iqbal alias Bala is my nephew against whom, F.I.R. No,198 dated 5-3-1993 under section 337-A, P.P.C., Police Station Qadirpur Raan was, registered and he was arrested. He was released on 26- 10-1993 on bail. It was I, who had pursued the entire case. The deceased Usman felt annoyed. On 29-10-1993 at 9-30 a.m., I was sitting in my Dera known as Dera of Lambardaran all alone in a room when all of a sudden, Usman deceased came and he challenged me for getting Iqbal released on bail. I tried to stop him by saying that how he entered my Dera without my permission.
He was armed with .12 bore pistol and he fired at me which hit on my leg. He loaded a second cartridge. 1 in order to save myself grappled with the deceased in order to snatch the pistol to save my life and when tried to keep the nuzzle away from me and downward and in this scuffle the pistol went off which hit Usman Khan, who left the room and went outside along with the crime weapon which he was holding in his hand. I do not know where he went or where he fell down. My cousin Ghulam Furqani came there, who took me to police station. He tied my wound. We both were kept waiting for a long time at police station and thereater police officials told me to bring MLC. I was taken to Civil Hospital where after getting first aid and MLC I was admitted in Nishtar Hospital, Multan from where I was arrested by the police. Suleman, Zaman and Bhawan Shah P.
Ws. Were not present at the place of occurrence nor my co-accused namely Rasheed, Iqbal, Raja and Sadiq were present at the spot. I made same statement to the police.
(ii) The deceased must have remained unattended for a long time because he left along my Dera.
The injuries on the person of Bhawan Shah P. W. Are false, fabricated and a false MLC was procured in order to make him an injured P. W. He has deposed against us because of the grudge which he bore because of abduction of Mst. Shamim Mai.
(iii) Suleman complainant also tried to become an injured witness but somehow or the others, the time of the injuries given in the false MLC did not coincide with the occurrence. So, he was constrained to file a false complaint against Shabbir Ahmed Shah in order to make at alternate story to justify the MLC. The complaint is said to have been filed on 7-11-1993 when the investigating agencies which were sided with him threw out his MLC being false one. The complaint is still pending and the last data was 3-5-1994 and the so-called accused have not yet been summoned. 1 tender in evidence certified copy of the order sheet of aforementioned complaint Exh.DB (3 leaves). The investigation was not only partial but dishonest and was conducted at the instance of the political persons with whom the complainant party has very close ties and contact who are inimical towards us. The complainant party tried to kill us in Jail even by putting poison into our food which was supplied from outside through the help of some Jail Warden or any person, as a result of which, F.I.R. No,40 dated 28-2-1994 was lodged by the Superintendent, District Jail, Multan, under section 337, P.P.C., the copy of which is Exh.DC. Rasheed, co-accused is my real brother. Lqbal is my nephew and Raja is also my nephew. The whole family is involved.
9. Replying to this question, the respondent Rasheed replied as under:-- "I have been falsely involved in this case. I was not present at the time of occurrence. I am student and I was studying privately to appear in B.A. Exam; at the time of occurrence. My co-accused Khurshid has explained in detail in his statement."
10. Replying to this question, the respondent Raja replied as under:-- "My name is Sajid Raza, I am not known or called as Raja anywhere either in my village or my college. I am son of Haji Ghulam Furqani, who is Chairman of Zakat and Ushar Committee Luthar West. I tender in evidence my certificate issued by the Principal, Government College, Civil Lines, Multan, Exh.DD and Notification of Chairman of my father Haji Ghulam Furqani Exh.DE. A close friend of the complainant party had contested elections of Chairman, Zakat and Ushar against my father and he lost it and for that reason also, I was involved in this case. I was not present at the time of occurrence. My co-accused Khurshid has explained in detail in his statement."
11. While, replying to this question, the respondent Sadiq replied as under:-- "I have been falsely involved in this case. I was not present at the time of occurrence. My co- accused Khurshid has explained in detail in his statement".
12. After conclusion of the trial, aforesaid judgment was recorded by the learned trial Court.
13. The State and complainant through the instant appeal and Revision have challenged the validity of the impugned judgment and prayed for the convicting the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in accordance with law.
14. Learned D.P.G. And learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submit that prosecution has proved motive part of prosecution story; that occular account of the prosecution story was furnished by Muhammad Suleman, P.W.9; that although Muhammad Suleman is real brother of Muhammad Usman, deceased but he had no enmity or to falsely implicate respondents Nos.2 to 5 in this case: that prosecution has proved ocular account by producing Bhawan Shah, P.W.10, who was injured witness but learned trial Court without any lawful justification disbelieved his evidence; that both eye-witnesses Bhawan Shah and Muhammad Suleman, P.W.9 and 10, respectively explained the reason of their presence at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence; that it was a day light occurrence and there was no chance of misidentification; that ocular account furnished by Muhammad Suleman and Bhawan Shah, P.Ws. Was corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Altaf Hussain, P.W.4, who conducted post mortem examination of Usman Khan, deceased; that respondents also lead to respective recoveries during investigation, which was also a corroborative piece of evidence against them; that prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but learned trial Court without any lawful justification acquitted respondents Nos.2 to 5, so, it has been prayed that while accepting this appeal, judgment dated 14-5-1994 passed by learned trial Court be set aside and respondents Nos.2 to 5 be convicted in accordance with law.
15. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 5, submits that prosecution had created a false motive to implicate respondents in this case and that prosecution could not prove motive set up by it; that in order to prove occular account prosecution produced Muhammad Suleman, P.W.9 who is real brother of Usman Khan, deceased; that according to prosecution version, Raja, respondent No,3 inflicted SOTA blow on the person of Muhammad Suleman, complainant but complainant was not medically examined by the doctor; that reason given by Muhammad Suleman, complainant for his presence at the time of occurrence, was not believable keeping in view the evidence on record; that prosecution produced another eye-witness Bhawan Shah, who appeared as P.W.10; that according to prosecution version Bhawan Shah and Usman Khan, deceased were dragged by the respondents inside the house of the accused/respondent No,4 but doctor did not observe any signs of dragging on the person of Bhawan Shah, P.W. As well as on the person of the deceased, so, prosecution story was belied to this extent that deceased and Bhawan Shah was taken inside the Dera of the accused while dragging them; that injuries on the person of Bhawan Shah were also in conflict with medical evidence; that Bhawan Shah was not injured during the occurrence rather on account of self-suffered injuries he has posed himself as injured P.W.; that evidence of both eye-witnesses was based on contradictions and improvements, so no reliance can be placed on such discredited evidence; that Khurshid Ahmad, respondent No,4 sustained fire-arm injury at the hands of Usman Khan, deceased, which was suppressed by the prosecution; that the defence version that Usman Khan, deceased entered into the Dera of Khurshid Ahmad, respondent No,4, armed with .12-bore pistol and fired a him which hit on his leg and that Usman Khan, deceased loaded a second cartridge and in order to save himself Khursheed Ahmad, respondent No,4 grappled with the deceased in order to snatch the pistol to save his life and tried to keep nosal of the pistol away from him and downward and in this scuffle pistol went of which hit Usman Khan, deceased, who after 'sustaining injuries left the room and went outside along with his pistol was more probable and that learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence on record, on the basis of cogent reasons acquitted the respondents, so it has been prayed that this appeal and revision is liable to be dismissed.
16. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for parties and perused the record with care.
17. This occurrence took place on 29-10-1993 at 9.45 a.m. Whereas matter was reported to police at 12-10 a.m. With dewy of 2-1/2 hours, whereas the distance of police station from the place of occurrence was four miles. The prosecution did not give any plausible explanation that why matter was reported to the police with such delay.
18. In order to prove motive of prosecution story, prosecution produced Muhammad Suleman, P.W.9 and according to his evidence motive behind his occurrence was that Iqbal alias Balu, nephew of Khurshid Ahmad, accused had injured Ihsan Ahmad, maternal cousin of the complainant with pistol and in this regard a criminal case was registered at police Station Qadir Pur Raan against said Iqbal alias Balu and in said case Usman Khan was a witness. When the compromise was being effected between the parties Usman Khan had opposed the compromise, so, the accused persons felt annoyed and they committed the murder of Usman Khan, deceased. Perusal of evidence of Muhammad Suleman reveals that in the said case Ihsan Ahmad was injured whereas Iqbal was accused and in that case injured filed a affidavit before the learned Magistrate whereby lqbal, accused was released on hail. It has been admitted by this witness that since a compromise had been effected between them and complainant of that case. So. They were not apprehending any danger from the accused/respondent of this case nor Usman Khan had any suspicion of any foul play at the hands of accused/respondents and that they had not taken any precautions in order to avoid the accused/respondents of this case as compromise was genuine from both sides.
19. Keeping in view the evidence of Muhammad Suleman, P.W.9, Ihsan Ahmad, injured witness of aforementioned case had tendered affidavit in favour of Iqbal alias Balu and on account of affidavit of injured P.W. Iqbal alias Balu accused of aforementioned case was released on bail, so there was no or any grievance against thecomplainant party and there was no reason for the accused persons to take revenge from Usman Khan, deceased as even if it is believed that Usman Khan, deceased had opposed this compromise but inspite of that the compromise was genuinely effected between the parties and Iqbal alias Balu was released on bail, so, there was no occasion for the accused/respondents to take' revenge on that account. In view of aforementioned circumstances, motive of the prosecution story was neither believable nor it was proved.
20. In order to prove occular account prosecution produced Muhammad Suleman. P.W.9. Who was real brother of Usman Khan, deceased. According to Muhammad Suleman, P.W.9. On the ,day of occurrence he and his brother Usman Khan proceeded towards Dera of Dost Muhammad in order to make a telephone call and when they reached near the door of said Dera. Bhawan Shah met Usman Khan, who started talking with Bhawan Shah whereas he went inside the Dera of Dost Muhammad to make a telephone call. The reason given by Muhammad Suleman, complainant that he accompanied his brother in order to make a telephone call at the Dera of Dost Muhammad is falsified by his own evidence as he had admitted that telephone connection is installed in his own house. Although this witness volunteered that his own telephone connection was disconnected due to non-payment but he did not give any proof in this regard. During cross- examination, he also admitted that for a telephone call the house of Wazir Ehatti is quite close to his house and that there is telephone exchange and PCO at Eid Gah Chowk, which is near to his house, so it is not believable that if his own telephone connection was disconnected then why he did not go, to the house of Wazir Bhatti or telephone exchange and PCO which was very near to his house rather he opted to proceed to Dera of Dost Muhammad, which was situated at longer distance. Prosecution is also silent that if Muhammad Suleman, P.W.9 went to make a telephone call then why his brother Usman Khan, deceased was accompanying him. The evidence of this P.W.
Is contradicted with his previous statement. During cross-examination he stated as under:-- "I had stated in Exh. PG that I along with Zaman P. W. Had reached the door of the Kotha where Usman and Bhawan were being assaulted and had witnessed the occurrence standing at the door (confronted where the door of the Kotha is not mentioned). I had stated before the police that when I tried to enter the Kotha, Raja gave me a SOTA blow. (confronted with Exh.PG, not so recorded). I had stated in Exh. PG that inside the Kotha, Raja had given a SOTA blow to Bhawan Shah, while the other four accused had given fist and kicks blows to Bhawan Shah. (confronted not so recorded)."
21. The aforementioned portion of evidence of this witness cannot be believed as same was confronted with his previous statement. Perusal of evidence of this witness also reveals that he improved his statement and stated that he witnessed the occurrence from the outer gate of Dera of Khursheed Ahmad but this fact was not mentioned by him in the F.I.R. Exh.PG nor he stated this fact at the time of preparation of site plan Exh.PF prepared by the draftsman. This dishonest improvement was made by him as from the outer gate of Dera of Dost Muhammad it was not possible for him to witness the occurrence. According to the evidence of this P.W. He sustained SOTA blow at the hands of Raja, respondent No,3 but he was not medically examined by the doctor in this regard and according to the evidence of Nazeer Ahmad, Inspector/SHO, P. W.11 he examined Muhammad Suleman, P.W. But he did not observe any injury on his person, so, in these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of this P.W.
22. In order to establish its ease prosecution produced another eyewitness Bhawan Shah, P.W.10.
This witness was a chance witness. He did not furnish any `explanation that why he came in front of Dera of Dost Muhammad at the time of occurrence. Nazeer Ahmad, Inspector/I.O. Admitted during cross-examination that he did not investigate as to why Bhawan Shah had gone there at the time of occurrence. This witness was an injured witness and learned counsel for the appellant/complainant had vehemently argued that as Bhawan Shah sustained injuries during the occurrence so his evidence could not be disbelieved. The perusal of evidence of Bhawan Shah as well as Dr. Aftab Ahmad, P.W. Reveals that Bhawan Shah did not sustain any injury at the time of occurrence. According to the evidence of Bhawan Shah, he was dragged inside the Dera. Dr. Aftab Ahmad, P.W.3, who medically examined Bhawan Shah deposed that in case of dragging there would positively be abrasion and peeling of skin also but he did not observe any such injury on the person of Bhawan Shah which could be result of dragging. The contention of Bhawan Shah that he was .Given kick and fist blows at the time of occurrence, which were numerous in number and he did not deny the suggestion that number of these blows were more than twenty or thirty. Is also falsified by the evidence of Dr. Aftab Ahmad. P.W.3, who categorically stated that he did not find any bruise on the person of Bhawan Shah, injured which is usually caused by fist and kick blows.
Statement of Bhawan Shah regarding his injuries, is re-produced as under:- ".I had stated before the police that after Usman Khan having been shot by Khursheed, ,accused, all the five accused have given him beating (confronted with Exh.DA not so recorded.)"
' As evidence of Bhawan Shah with regard to injuries on his person was confronted with his previous statement, so, he cannot be believed on this point.
23. At the time of Medico-legal examination Dr. Aftab Ahmad observed only two injuries on his person. Injury No,2 was mere a swelling whereas Injury No,1 was a lacerated wound which was simple in nature. During cross-examination Dr. Aftab Ahmad frankly conceded that possibility of injuries on the person of Bhawan Shah being self-suffered cannot he ruled out.
24. Keeping in view the oral as well medical evidence of Bhawan Shah, we are of the considered view that this witness was not injured at the time of occurrence rather he, on the basis of self- suffered injuries. Had falsely deposed during the trial and no reliance can be placed on such evidence. Even otherwise, it is not necessary that an injured witness would speak whole truth. In this view we are fortified by relying on case-law reported as PLD 2004 Peshawar 1 (The State v.
Muhammad Raja and 3 others).
25. As both eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution have been disbelieved, so, the version of the accused/respondents put forth by them in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Would be accepted in toto. According to the version of Khurshid Ahmad, respondent No,4, at the time of occurrence Usman Khan, deceased entered into his Dera armed with pistol 12-bore and fired at him which landed on his leg and that Usman Khan, deceased loaded a second cartridge and in order to save himself and to snatch his pistol, Khurshid Ahmad grappled with the deceased, tried to keep nasal of the pistol away from him and during this scuffle the pistol went off which hit Usman Khan, deceased, who after sustaining injuries left the room and went outside along with his pistol, was more probable. The version of respondents/accused also finds corroboration from the evidence of prosecution. Admittedly this occurrence took place in the Dera of Khurshid Ahmad respondent No,4. According to the prosecution evidence deceased was dragged by the appellants inside the room of Dera but this fact has been falsified by the post mortem examination report as no signs of dragging were found on the person of the deceased at the time of post mortem examination so. We are of the considered view that the deceased himself entered in the room of the accused/respondent. According to prosecution evidence after injuring Bhawan Shah and Usman Khan, deceased, both of them were taken out from the KOTHA to the street of main gate of the Dera of the accused and both of them were thrown in the street and that blood was also available at that point. Police secured blood-stained earth only from inside the Dera of Khurshid Ahmad, where occurrence took place and no blood was secured from the street where the deceased was allegedly thrown by the accused persons which is clear indicative of the fact that P.
Ws. Were not present at the time of occurrence and accused/ respondents did not throw the deceased as well as Bhawan Shah in the street. Khurshid Ahmad, accused sustained fire arm injury at the time of occurrence but this fact was suppressed by the prosecution and due tolB this suppression it can be inferred that deceased was aggressor. It is pertinent to mention here that according to the evidence of Muhammad Suleman, P.W., they had tied a cloth on the wound of Usman Khan in an injured condition to stop his blood. This contention of the prosecution is falsified by the evidence of Nazeer Ahmad, P.W.11, Inspector/1.0., who stated that no cloth was tied around the leg of the deceased. Dr. Altaf Hussain. P.W.4 who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, also admitted and agreed that with the prompt medical aid and stoppage of blood, the life of the deceased could have been saved and that if legs had been tied tightly with the piece of cloth then the life of the deceased could be saved. During cross- examination Dr. Altaf Hussain, P.W.4 frankly 'conceded to the suggestion of learned defence counsel that keeping in view the injury No,1, it was caused from C close range and same could be caused during scuffle. This admission by the doctor leads support to the defence version.
26. In appeal against acquittal, judgment of the learned trial Court cannot be reversed unless the same is perverse, completely illegal and that from the perusal of evidence no other decision can be given except that the accused is guilty or there has been complete misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice. In exercising this jurisdiction, this Court is always slow unless it feels that grave injustice has been done in administration of criminal justice due to incompetency, stupidity or perversity of trial Court culminating into distorted conclusion. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Azhar All v. The State"
27. From the perusal of the record we are of the considered view that the judgment of learned trial Court is neither perverse, illegal, nor it was based on complete misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice. The conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court were based on cogent reasons. There was no infirmity or illegality found by us in the impugned judgment. In these circumstances we have not been able to take a view different from the one taken by learned trial Judge. Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that the accused, after his acquittal by trial Court enjoys double presumption of innocence in his favour and. Courts seized with acquittal appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. Are obliged to be very careful in dislodging such presumption. Reliance can advantageously be made to the case of Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State (2004 SCMR 1185) wherein at page 1194 the Hon'ble apex Court pleased to observe as under:- "It is well-settled principle of criminal administration of justice that when an accused is acquitted of the charge, he enjoys I E double presumption of innocence in his favour and Courts seized with acquittal appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. Are obliged to be very careful in dislodging such presumption. Undoubtedly., two views are always possible while appreciating the evidence available on record, therefore, for such reason and in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, it is always insisted that the Court should follow the recognized principles for interference in the acquittal judgment as held in the case of E Ghulam Sikanda- and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 that the Appellate Court seized with the acquittal appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. Is competent to interfere in the order challenged before it provided it has been established that the trial Court has disregarded the material evidence or misread such evidence or received such evidence illegally."
28. In this regard further reliance can be placed or the case of Haji Paio Khan v. Sher Biaz and others (PLD 2009 SC 492), wherein the afore-referred view was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Keeping in view the above circumstances coupled with guidelines given by the Hon'ble apex Court in the above quoted precedent cases, this Court is of the firm view that there is nothing arbitrary, capricious, fanciful, or against the record to warrant interference with the acquittal of the respondents.
29. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal (Criminal Appeal No,173 of 1994) and revision (Criminal Revision No,110 of 1994), which are hereby dismissed.