ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.---This criminal acquittal appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 30th October , 2015 (impugned judgment), passed by learned Sessions Judge Barkhan at Rakhni (trial court), whereby the accused/respondents Nos. 1 to 5 were acquitted of the charge in case FIR No.23 of 2011, registered with Police Station Rakhni, under sections 324, 148, 149, 109 Pakistan Penal Code (P .P.C.).
2. Succinct facts of the case are that on 21st September , 2011, FIR No. 23 of 2011, under above mentioned section was registered with Police Station Rakhni District Barkhan, on the card-e-Biyan of PW-1 Ishaq on the allegation that on the said date the complainant along with his tribesmen Ahmed and Muhammad Ramzan were busy in constructing a room at his unsettled land in Mouza Nazar Rehmatan. At about 2:20 p.m. the accused persons Muhammad, Paind Khan, Taj Muhammad, Rasool Bakhsh and Rahim Bakhsh along with three unknown persons duly armed came there and told that the said land was their property and forbade them from construction of the room, but they denied, on which the accused persons opened fire as a result the complainant received bullet at his left calf whereas his other tribesmen escaped injuries. It was alleged that the accused persons have committed this act in consultation with Noor Ahmed, hence instant case was registered.
3. After registration of FIR, the investigation of the case was conducted, whereafter , challan of the case was submitted before the court of Sessions Judge Barkhan at Rakhni, (trial court).
4. After codal formalities charge was framed to which the accused/ respondents denied. At the trial the prosecution produced following nine witnesses: PW-1 Ishaq complainant/injured, who produced his Fard-e-Biyan as Ex: P/1-A and FIR as Ex: P/1-B; PW-2 Ramzan, eye-witness; PW-3 Ahmed Bakhsh, eye-witness; PW-4 Asad Mir Constable recovery witness of blood stained turban Ex: P/4-A and trouser Ex: P/4-B; PW-5 Pir Bakhsh recovery witness of blood stained earth Ex: P/5-A and empties of Kalashnikov and 303 bore rifle Ex: P/5-B; PW-6 Dr . Mehar Din Medical Of ficer BHU Rakhni produced MLC of injured Ishaq Ex: P/6-A; PW-7 Rahim Bakhsh ASI, the First Investigating Of ficer, produced site map Ex: P/7-A and challan Ex: P/7-B; PW-8 Ghulam Abbas ASI the second Investigating Of ficer produced incomplete challan as Ex: P/8-A: PW-9 Farooq Ahmed third Investigating Officer produced letter to FSL as Ex: P/9-A, FSL Report as Ex: P/9-B. and challan as Ex: P/9-C;
5. After close of prosecution side the accused/ respondents were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which they once again denied the allegation and claimed to be innocent. The accused/ respondents neither recorded statements on oath, nor produced any witness in defence.
6. After completion of trial the learned trial court heard arguments and thereafter , vide judgment dated 30th October , 2015 acquitted the accused/ respondents. Hence being aggrieved of the same the appellant has filed instant acquittal appeal before this court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the patties and perused the record. In order to substantiate the charge the prosecution has produced nine witnesses. The case of the prosecution revolves around the testimony of injured witness, ocular account of PW-2 Ramzan, PW-3 Noor Bakhsh, MLC, recovery of crime shell, report of FSI, in regard of blood stained cloths. PW-7 Rahim Bakhsh conducted investigation, secured, blood stained Turban and cloths of injured through Ex: P/4-A and blood stained earth and four empties of crime weapon vide Ex: P/5-A and Ex: P/5-B. PW-6 Dr. Mehar Din produced MLC as Ex: P/6-A. Before analyzing the evidence of ocular account it would be relevant to reproduce the answer of relevant question by PW -6 Dr . Mehar Din as under: "It is correct that when I examined the patient his wounds were, found 4/5 days old.
It is correct to suggest that when I examined the injured in found sign of burning around the' wound.
It is possible that kind of wounds may be self inflicted."
8. Ex: P/6-A transpires that the injuries 'were 4/5 days old, while the injured was shifted on 21st September , 2011 immediately after the occurrence. Ex: P/6-A is totally belied the ocular account which creates serious suspicion in the case of prosecution. Though the medical evidence is a corroborative/ supportive piece of evidence and by itself a does not identify the accused, but it carries weight. If the statements of eye-witn esses are taken in juxta position it negates each other . PW-3 ocular witness stated that firing was made from the distance of two feet, while as per Ex: P/6-A there was burning around the wound meaning thereby that the fire was made from 4/5 feet. The Honorable Supreme Court held in case Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Asif 2007 SCMR 1812 .
"----It is a settled law that blackening appears on the dead body in case the deceased has received injuries at a distance of 4 feet according to medial jurisprudence by Modi. It is a settled law that oral evidence cannot be accepted to the extent of its inconsistency with medical evidence. See Mardan Ali's case 1980 SCMR 889, Bagh Ali's case. 1983 SCMR 1292 , Sain Dad's case 1972 SCMR 74 and Zardshad's case 1969 SCMR 644."
9. The blood stained turban and cloths vide Ex: P/4-A and blood stained earth vide Ex: P/5-A received in Forensic Science Laboratory for examination on 8th October , 2011 after seventeen days delay . There is no explanation as to why the referred to articles Were sent to FSL with such delay and were in whose possession. The prosecution failed to prove safe custody that where such articles were kept.
10. The injured/complainant and ocular witnesses have nominated six persons and three unknown persons with the allegations that all of them made firing upon the injured. The complainant received only one injury while the eye-witnesses escaped unhurt. It is astonishing that, firing was made by nine persons while the prosecution secured four empties of Kalashnikov and 3030 rifle. The same shells were not sent to Arms Expert in order to ascertain whether the firing was made from one weapon or more.
11. The testimony of injured witness is complete photographic narration of written application Ex: P/i-A for registration of FIR, wherein the complaina nt alleged that the respondents and absconding: accused fired upon him due to which he sustained one injury on left calf. The injured and ocular witnesses have narrated the same story and levelled general allegations. The witnesses further admitted that the responden ts' party prior to the occurrence had got registered criminal case against them. Admittedly the parties have enmity with each other , therefore, false implication cannot be ruled out. The witnesses are closely related to the complainant. Where the enmity existed between the parties the rule of caution required for independent corroboration. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Irshad v . The State 1999 SCMR 1030 . It was held therein: The eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution are closely related to one and other and the rule of prudence required that there should have been some independent corroboration available for placing implicit reliance on their testimony but the same is lacking and it would be highly unsafe to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of eye- witnesses examined by the prosecution, particularly when it is full of material contradictions. It is in conflict with the medical evidence, also with regard to the distance from which the deceased and the injured P.Ws., were reportedly fired at. The deceased and the eye-witnesses were not persons of good antecedents as apparent from record, showing them involved in several criminal cases."
12. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of respondents. The prosecution is bound to prove its case E against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled principle that order of acquittal shall not be interfered because the presumption of innocence of accused further strengthens by acquittal. The judgment of the trial court is well reasoned and in absence of any misreading and non-reading of evidence no interference is warranted by this court. Reliance is placed on Mst. Anwar Begum v. Akhtar Hussain alias Kaka 2017 SCMR 1710 and Zaheer Sadiq v. Muhammad Ijaz 2017 SCMR 2007 . In view of above discussion the crimina l acquittal appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.