The above suo motu revision arises on account of the judgment dated 15th March, 1978 of the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, by which the respondents above-named, were acquitted in Sessions Case No. 304-1876, for offence under section 302, P. P. C. Read with sections 148 and 149, P. P. C.
2. The learned Advocate for the respondents submitted, that Government did not file any acquittal appeal against the judgment dated 15th March, 1978, of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana In addition to this, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana after due appraisal of the evidence adduced before him for cogent reasons acquitted the respondents, and as such this was not a fit case for setting aside the acquittal judgment in question. In support of his contentions, the learned Advocate for the respondents relied upon the cases reported in PLD 1950 Lah. 439 and PLD 1963 Lah. 514.
3. The learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand submitted, that he was not supporting the above suo motu Revision on the following grounds:
(a) That there is a descrepancy in ocular and medical evidence.
(b) That P. W. Ghulam Ali talks of two persons only involved in incident, but still he was not declared hostile by the prosecution.
(c) That the alleged motive was not proved by the prosecution.
(d) That there are discrepancies in the statements of complainant, 10 and the mashir of the arrest and recoveries of the respondents and further the hatchets allegedly recovered at the pointation of the respondents were not sealed on the spot.
4. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the learned Advocates made before me, and I have gone through the R & Ps, of the learned trial Court as well as the impugned judgment.
5. I find that the learned IInd Additional. Sessions Judge, Larkana after due appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, rejecter the alleged recoveries, as there is material discrepancy in the statements of complainant, 10 and the mashir on such recoveries. According to the 10 all the respondents, except Gosho, voluntarily appeared before him, whereas according to the mashir Muhammad Murad, they were arrested from their houses. In addition to this, according to the mashir respondents on their arrest were wearing blood-stained shirts, whereas according to the 10 none of the respondents were wearing blood-stained clothes, when they voluntarily appeared before him at the bridge. The learned trial Court further came to the conclusion that all eye-witnesses were inter-related and hostile to the respondents. After due appraisal of their evidence, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that there were glaring contradictions between version of alleged incident as well as motive inter se between the prosecution witnesses and as such no reliance can be placed on their statements in a case of capita charge. The learned trial Court also came to the conclusion, that hatchets allegedly recovered from the respondents were neither scale nor mashirnamas thereof were prepared on the spot. I have gone through the statements of prosecution witnesses very carefully and see no reasons to disagree with the conclusion and findings of the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, in respect thereof. I also find from the R & P of the learned trial Court, that the motive .Was also not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere mention of the names of the respondents in F. I. R. Which was lodged.
Promptly, by itself in the face of the above facts on record does not prove the guilt of the respondents.
6. The cases reported in PLD 1950 Lah. 439 at page 443 and PLD 1963 Lah. 514 at page 515 cited by the learned, Advocate for the respondents, clearly supports contentions of the learned Advocate for the respondents, that this is not a fit case for exercise of suo motu powers of revision, in view of the prosecution evidence, which is full of contradictions. I am in respectful agreement with the above judgments for the reasons given in the said judgments.
7. Therefore, I dismiss the above suo motu revision withdraw notices issued to the respondents and discharge the bail bonds, if any, executed\ by the respondents.