1. GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.-Bashir Ahmad son of Yaqub; Faqir by caste, resident of Chak 467-GB, District Faisalabad, was tried for the murder of Muhammad Latif, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad The trial Judge by judgment dated 8th November, 1977 acquitted Bashir.
2. State has challenged the acquittal. Notice was issued to Bashir ort 25th November, 1978, The occurrence in which the respondent was involved was alleged to have taken place on 13th June, 1975 at 3 a. m. In Chak No. 467-GB, with--in the jurisdiction of Police Station Samundri, District Faisalabad. Report (Exh. PG) was lodged by Nawab Din. It was recorded by S. L/S. H. O. Muhammad Akram Khan.
3. During the night of occurrence, Latif was sleeping. Bashir respondent came armed with hatchet. He attacked Latif. He gave hatchet blows to Latif who died at the spot.
4. Motive was the quarrel between Bashir and his mother a day before in which Latif intervened; abused Bashir and slapped him. This he did because Bashir was insulting his mother. Bashir threatened Latif and told that he would avenge the insult.
5. According to the prosecution, the respondent was addicted to smoking charas and was a wagabond.
6. The prosecution evidence in this case consists of the ocular version given by the first informant Haji Nawab Din, Mehdi Khan and Mehnga. The other evidence pertains to the recovery of blood-stained hatchet and the post-mortem examination.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State took us through the ocular evidence, then referred to the recovery and finally the post-mortem report.
8. While' dealing with the ocular account, he submitted that they were natural witnesses. They gave reasonable examination of their presence at the odd hours of the night. They were most respectable persons. They were not inimical in any way to the respondent. It was further submitted that on the ground of relationship with the deceased their evidence is not to be discarded. Learned counsel argued that the eye-witnesses' account is corroborated by the recovery of hatchet which according to Serologists report (Exh. PL) was stained with human blood. Post-mortem report further proved that the weapon used could be hatchet.
9. Learned counsel then challenged the reasons given by the trial Court for acquittal of the respondent and contended that those were contrary to the evidence on record.
10. We have also heard learned counsel for the respondent who opposed the appeal on the ground that the trial Court acted in accordance with law and the principles concerning the administration of criminal justice. He submitted that the ocular evidence did not inspire confidence. Hence, the trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent.
11. Nawab Din the first informant is father of the deceased. The two others are also relatives. Mehndi Khan and Mehnga were confronted with their statements made before the Police. Their evidence before the trial Court was materially different to what they told to the Police. . There were important omissions in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. For instance, number of injuries and the other details which they gave at the trial were not given in their statements.
12. We reminded the learned counsel appearing for the State of the well settled principles laid down by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court of Pakistan when the judgment of acquittal is to be set aside. It has been held that even if the appellate Court comes to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court, normally the judgment of acquittal shall not be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the State could not give any reply to this observation.
13. Although learned counsel for the State took us through the ocular evidence and that of recovery and the post-mortem report but he did not refer to the deposition of Iqbal Muhammad Lambardar of Chak No. 467--GB, which was pressed into service by the respondent. This is an interesting piece of evidence. According to Iqbal Muhammad, another criminal case was registered against the respondent under section 307, P. P. C. That incident pertains to, precisely, the same time as in this case. It is interest--ing to note that most of the P. Ws. Including Iqbal Muhammad are the witnesses in the other case. This aspect adversely affects the prosecution case. It creates fatal doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution story. This appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
14. Notice issued to the respondent is withdrawn. He is discharged of his bail bond.