' GULZAR AHMED, J. --- This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment dated 03.05.2006 of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, by which Criminal Appeal No, 1744 of 2000 filed by the respondents, against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 2911,2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, sentencing them to death on two counts with compensation of Rs,100,000/- each payable to the legal heirs of deceased under Section 544-A, Cr.P,C., was allowed and both the respondents were acquitted and the Murder Reference was answered in negative.
2. Leave to appeal was granted vide order dated 13.12.2006 for re-appraisal of the entire evidence for safe administration of criminal justice.
3. Brief facts of the matter are that the complainant (PW-8) had lodged F.I.R. No, 109 of 1996 on 25.06.1996 under Sections 302, 324 and 34, PPC at Police Station Renala Khurd District Okara alleging that at 3:00 p.m. on the same day he alongwith Sohail iqbal and Muhammad Naseem were going in a private car and their two other companions namely Shakir Akbar and Naveed Akhtar were ahead of them on a motorcycle. When they reached near the land of Khalid Chairman, a gray coloured car collided with the motorcycle. As a result, both Shakir Akbar and Naveed Akhtar fell down on the ground, Three persons namely Muhammad Anwar alias Guddoo (since dead), Muhammad Amjad and Muhammad Jameel alias Jeela came out of the said gray coloured car armed with 222 bore rifles. Muhammad Anwar alias Guddoo started Indiscriminate firing at Shakir Akbar which hit on his head, mouth and chest, Thereafter, Muhammad Amjad started firing at Shakir Akbar which hit on his right leg, Muhammad Jameel alias Jeela also made firing with his rifle 222 bore at Shakir Akbar which hit on his left leg after that he also made two fires at Naveed Akhtar which hit on his abdomen and back. The respondents/accused then ,fled away towards village 23/2-L As a result of firing Shakir Akbar succumbed to Injuries at while Naveed Akhtar received serious injuries. The incident was reported to the police and F.I.R. was registered. The existence of previous dispute between the parties was also mentioned. Naveed Akhtar later expired in hospital,
4. After trial the Trial Court, vide its judgment dated 29.11.2000 convicted and sentenced the respondents, as noted above, while the Appellate Court through the impugned judgment dated 03.05.2006 acquitted both the respondents from the charge.
5. Learned ASC for the appellant has contended that the F.I.R. was promptly lodged; that it was a day time occurrence; that the accused were specifically named in the F.I.R. with specific role; and that the eye-witnesses have explained their presence at the place of incident. He further contended that the motive was admitted and medical .evidence so also the ascendance of the accused corroborates the ocular account and that the High Court by misreading the evidence available on record acquitted the accused/respondents. The learned Additional Prosecutor General has also contended that eye-witness account furnished-fey the two eye-witnesses is quite natural and thus did not support the impugned judgment. On the other hand, learned ASC appearing for respondents No, I and 2 have supported the impugned judgment.
6. We have heard learned ASCs for the parties so also the learned Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab and have also perused the evidence available on record.
7. Although the above submissions were made by the learned ASC for the appellant but he could not demonstrate before us by reading of relevant evidence that the two eye-witnesses namely Javaid Akbar (PW-8), who Is the real brother of deceased Shaklr Akbar and Sohail lqbal (PW-9), who is the cousin of deceased Shakir Akbar, could be relied upon. None of the reasons mentioned in the appellate judgment for not believing the eye-witness account furnished by these PWs by no means was shown to have been based upon misreading of evidence. In the appellate _judgment It was found that both the eye-witnesses were the residents of far-flung areas Inasmuch as PW-8 was resident of village 21/2-L while PW-9 resided 36/37 miles away from the place of occurrence, Both these eye-witnesses were closely related to the complainant party and have given reasons of their presence of having visited the father who was admitted in Civil Hospital, Okara, but no documentary proof of admission of father and discharge from the Hospital was produced. The Appellate Court also seriously doubted the presence of eye-witnesses at the spot for the reason that while Shakir Akbar was dead and Naveed Akhtar was in injured condition, none of the PWs had cared to carry Naveed Akhtar, injured, to the Hospital rather the complainant/PW-8 proceeded to Police Station for registration of FIR. Even the Driver of private car, who was a witness, was not produced either during investigation on trial to support the prosecution version so much so that his name was also not disclosed. PW-9 has stated that Naveed Akhtar was shifted in another car in injured condition to DHQ Hospital, Okara, where he died after 4/5 hours of the occurrence. It was noted by the Appellate Court that had these witnesses been present at the spot their natural conduct would have been to immediately remove the injured Naveed Akhtar to Hospital for saving his life in the vehicle which was available with them, as it appears such was not done by these PWs.
The 1.0., who had ,reached at the spot at 3:45 p.m. immediately after registration of the F.I.R. did not say anything about admission of injured Naveed Akhtar in the Hospital. He also did not make any effort for recording the statement of injured Naveed Akhtar by obtaining permission from the Doctor about his fitness or otherwise. It was also noted that both these eye-witnesses had made certain improvements at the trial on material points and that the F.I.R. was not lodged promptly, as claimed by the prosecution, for the reason that the post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted next day at 11:30 a.m., which was with a considerable delay. The Doctor/PW-5 has stated that the relevant police papers were marked by the M.S. on 26.06.1996 and there was no delay on his part in conducting the post-mortem examination which lends support to the inference that, the F.I.R. was not lodged immediately rather it was done after consultation and deliberation.
The delay in conducting of post-mortem is attributed to non-availability of police papers, which fact lends further support to inference that F.I.R. was lodged with consultation and deliberation. The Appellate Court also found that the MLR regarding medical examination of the injured Naveed Akhtar was not brought on record and even Doctor was not cited as a witness or produced during the trial. The Appellate Court further found contradictions in the 'statements of eye-witnesses inasmuch as Muhammad Anwar alias Guddoo was alleged to have made indiscriminate firing at Shakir Akbar, deceased, which hit him on his head, mouth and chest but in the post-mortem examination no fire-arm injury was found on the face and head of this deceased her both the witnesses improved their version from the one given in the F.I.R. by stating at the trial that the fire made by Anwar alias Guddoo only hit on the chest of deceased Shakir Akbar. Similarly, Muhammad Jameel alias Jeela, respondent, was also alleged to have made two fires hitting at the abdomen and back of Naveed Akhtar. The Doctor found only one fire-arm entry wound at his back while the injury on abdomen was dedared to be an exit wound and both the PWs during that have improved their version by stating that only one fire-am, injury was made by Muhammad Jameel alias Jeela which hit on the back of Naveed Akhtar, deceased. The Appellate Court has further not believed the presence of eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence for had they been present in view of long standing enmity between the parties he accused party would not have spared them but would have attacked them also. It was further noted that the complainant and his father were helping the police against the respondents, who were narcotic dealers. The eye-witnesses were inimical and interested and it was noted that their evidence could not be believed without independent corroborate, which was not available on record. The recovery of weapons of offence from the respondents was also found to be inconsequential in that the same were not sent to the FSL for comparison with the empties said to have been recovered from the spot. The medical evidence was found to be in contradiction with the ocular account and the eye-witness account in this regard was based upon the improvements. For the above reasons the respondents were acquitted. The decisive factor in dealing with the appeal against acquittal judgment is that the Court on re-appraisal of evidence will not give the conclusion different from the one given by the Court acquitting the accused for reason that different conclusion can be drawn provided the conclusion drawn by the Court acquitting the accused is reasonably possible. However, where the Court reaches the conclusion which no reasonable person would conceivably reach and was impossible then this Court would interfere and that too in an exceptional case on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusive and irresistible conclusion with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and further that is found to be artificial, shocking and ridiculous. Reference in this respect be made to the case of Ghulam Sikandar & another v. Mamaraz Khan & others [PLD 1985 Supreme Court 11].
8. We have ourselves gone through the relevant evidence available on the record and failed to note that the acquittal judgment of the High Court is 'contrary to the principle, as set out by this Court in the above reported case. We are satisfied that the Appellate Court, in the impugned judgment, has considered, all the legal and factual aspects of the matter in considerable detail and are unable to find misreading or non-reading of evidence or anything which may call for interference by this Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.