SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J. --- This appeal has been preferred on behalf of Malik Ghulam Yasin (complainant of the F.I.R.) against the judgment dated 21.03.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court, Mian Channu, District Khanewal whereby respondents No. 2 to 4 were acquitted of the charges in respect of offences under Sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C. in case F.I.R. No. 422 of 2013, dated 07.11.2013 registered at Police Station Mianchannu, District Khanewal in respect of of fences under Sections 302, 148, 149, P .P.C.
2. As per prosecution case, the allegation was that on 07.11.2013 at about 6.30 p.m. the respondent No. 2 namely Imran Saeed and respondent No. 3 namely Amir Saeed came to his tubewell in square No. 22 killa No. 04 and asked the complainant/appellant namely Ghulam Yasin (PW-8) and his son name ly Zegham Zaman (PW-9) and Usman alias Sunny (deceased) to stop the tubewell because the accused wanted to pass canal water from the water course and on refusal of his sons the respondents No. 2 & 3 grappled with his sons and went away extending threats but later on at about 7.00 p.m. the accused nominated in the F.I.R. (Exh.PJ) returned to the place of occurrence duly armed. It was further alleged that respondent No. 2 Imran Saeed raised a lalkara for teaching the sons of complainant a lesson upon which the co-accused namely Anwar Saeed (Proclaimed offender) fired with his Mauser 30-bore and the fires hit upon the left temporal region and the left eye-brow of Usman alias Sunny (deceased) and when Zegham Zaman (PW-9) tried to save him, respondent No. 3 Amir Saeed inflicted hatchet blow on the head of Zegham Zaman (PW-9) whereas respondent No. 4 namely Zeeshan and respondent No. 3, Amir Saeed caused injuries on the person of Zegham Zaman (PW-9). It was further alleged that respondent No. 2 Imran Saeed inflicted blow of his pistol's butt on the complainant/appellant, Ghulam Yasin (PW-8). It was further alleged that on the arrival of persons 'of locality the accused fled away brandishing their weapons whereas Usman alias Sunny (deceased) succumbed to his injuries before reaching at the Hospital.
3. After the formal investigation of the case report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was submitted before the learned Trial Court wherein the respondents were sent to face trial. The learned Juvenile Court framed the charge against the accused. The respondents/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses in order to bring home the charge against the accused.
The accused in their statements under Section 342. Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and claimed that respondents No. 3 and 4 namely Amir Saeed and Zeeshan Saeed had an altercation between them and Usman Ali alias Sunny (deceased) and his companions and received injuries in the ensuing melee. The learned Trial Court after taking into consideration the entire material brought on the record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the respondents No. 2 to 4/accused beyond reasonable doubt in respect of offences under Sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C., however , the learned Trial Court convicted respondent No. 3 namely Amir Saeed under Section 337-A(i), P.P.C. and sentenced him to Daman of Rs. 20,000/-. Accordingly the respondents No. 2 to 4/accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C. as detailed above vide judgment dated 21.03.2015. Hence, this appeal,
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and have gone through the judgment with his assistance. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that sufficient incriminatory evidence was available on the record establishing guilt of respondents No. 2 to 4; therefore, the learned Trial Court was not justified in acquitting the respondents in respect of of fences under Sections 302, 148 and 149, P .P.C.
6. The whole prosecution case revolves around the evidence of Ghulam Yasin (PW-8) and Zegham Zaman (PW-9), the two eye-witnesses of the instant case. We have noticed that the learned Judge Juvenile Court has appreciated the evidence as produced by, the prosecution justly . We have also observed that the respondents No. 2 to 4 were not attributed to any role which would have facilitated the main accused Saeed Anwar (Proclaimed offender) in committing the Qatl-e-Amd of Usman alias Sunny . We have also noticed that the dispute regarding the water erupted at '6.30 p.m. and the main occur rence was committed at 7.00 p.m. During cross-examination it came on record that the house of respondent No. 2 to 4 was at a distance of 14-16 kilometers from the place of occurrence, so it was not possible for them to go home and then form an unlawful assembly and attack the complainant party with common object. We have also noted that the appellant namely Ghulam Yasin (PW-9) admitted that the arrangement of water turn had been continuing for the last many years and the turn of water of Ghulam Yasin had to end at 6.40 p.m. Hence, the presence of respondents No. 2 to 4 at the place of occurrence could not be a case of pre-planning rather it was in due course as after the turn of water of Ghulam Yasin (PW-9) came the turn of Saeed Anwar (since proclaimed offender), father of all the three respondents No. 2 to 4 namely Imran Saeed, Amir Saeed and Zeeshan Saeed. None of the respondents No. 2 to 4 used any weapons to cause any injury to the deceased Usman alias Sunny (deceased). Furthermore, the injury attributed to respondent No. 2 on the person of Ghulam Yasin (PW-8) could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt as Ghulam Yasin (PW-8) failed to mention the seat of the receipt of injury . Similarly , the respondent No. 4 namely Zeeshan was not attributed any specific injury on the body of Zegham Zaman (PW-9). It is an admitted fact of the case that there was no previous enmity between the parties and the said occurrence leading to the death of Usman alias Sunny (deceased) took place all of a sudden. The respondents No. 3 and 4 namely Amir and Zeeshan Saeed also suffered some injuries during the occurrence which were admitted by the witnesses, however , not sufficiently explained. It is established law that in case the common object stated in the charge having failed, each person would be held responsible for his individual acts. Reliance is placed on the case of Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah and others (PLD 1962 Supreme Court 502 ) wherein it has been held as under:-- "Here we may observe that in a case of this type the parties do not generally come out with the true story . It is a normal incident of an "adversary proceed ing" to minimize one 's own part in the incident. In such a case the Court must not be deterred by the incompleteness of the tale from drawing the inferen ces that properly flow from the evidence and circumstances. There is sufficient and satisfactory evidence that there was dispute between the parties over the plot which adjoins Ahmad Bepari's land to the south. Syed Ali Bepa ri (P W.1) claimed this southern plot and also filed documents in support of his claim. On the other hand, the accused Adu Mollah filed certain papers in support of his claim. There is, however , no satisfactory evidence that either party was in exclusive or un- disturbed possession of this land. A legitimate conclusion, therefore, could be drawn that on the morning of 15th November , both parties went to enforce their right or supposed right in the disputed land and for this purpose they armed themselves in full expectation of an armed conflict. Hence judging from their acts and conduct we think it can safely be said that each party , anticip ated resistance from the other and were, therefore, determined to have a trim' of strength. In such circumstances, it will be impossible to say that the accused party were acting on the defensive merely or in other words were acting in the exercise of any right of private defence of person or property .
From that state of relations between the parties, it is also clear that both the parties were prepared to fight and that a very trivial incident was sufficient to bring them into conflict. We think it is reasona ble to infer that in entering upon that conflict each party knowingly and deliberately took upon itself the risk of the encounter . Hence in the circumstances such as those of the present case non-question of right of private defence would arise and, the common object stated in the charge having failed, each person would be held responsible for his individual acts."
7. In the light of above discussion and facts it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C. against the respondents No. 2 to 4. It is important to note that according to established principle of the criminal administration of justice once an acquittal is recorded in, favour of accused facing criminal charge he enjoys double presumption of innocence therefore, the Courts compe tent to interfere in the acquittal order should be slow in converting the same into conviction, unless and until the ''said order is patently illegal, shocking, based on misreading and non-reading of the record or perverse. The said principle has been enunciated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment reported as Muhammad Inayat v. The State (1998 SCMR 1854 ) wherein it has been held as under:--- The Court would not interfere with acquittal merely because on re-appraisal of the evidence it comes to the conclusion different from that of the Court acquitting the accused provided both the conclusions are reasonably possible. If however , the conclusion reached by that Court was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same, and was impossible then this Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusion and irresistible conclusion; and that too with a view only to avoid grave carriage of justice and for no other purpose. The important test visualized in these cases, in this beha lf was that the finding sought to be interfered with, after scrutiny under the foregoing searching light, should be found wholly as artificial, shocking and riamulous."
The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Mst. Sughran Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervaz and others " (2015 SCMR 1 142) has held as under:-- On acquittal, an accused person earns two-fold innocence particularly , in the case when there are concurrent findings to that effect by the Trial Court and the Court of First Appeal (High Court), is the bedrock principle of justice in a case of acquittal, the standard and principle of appreciation evidence is entirely different from that in a case of conviction. Unless the concurrent findings of the two Courts below are found perverse, fanciful arbitrary and are based on misreading and non-reading of material evidence causing miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court would not lightly disturb the same because on reappraisal another view might be possible therefore, sanctity is attached under the law to such concurrent findings in ordinary course."
8. In view of the above, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court has been found by us to be such that any reasonable Court could have arrived at the same upon a fair assessment of the evidence available on the record. In these circumstances we have found no occasion of interference with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court in respect of respondents No. 2 to 4. This appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.