1. ' The respondents Umer, Usman and Salleh were tried on the charge of offences punishable under sections 302 and 323 read with section 34, P.P.C. In the. Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur. They were acquitted by Judgment dated 20-9-1980. The applicant has preferred this revision application against the acquittal after the State declined to prefer appeal against acquittal.
2. ' Prosecution case against the aforesaid respondents, briefly stated, was that they had done to death one Wahid Bux by shooting him dead from a pistol, in the afternoon of 22-9-1975. The report of the incident was made at Police outpost Ranwati of Police Station Ubauro on the same day, at about 7 p.m. By the applicant Ghazi and the crime was subsequently registered at Ubauro Police Station. It was alleged that the complainant Ghazi and the deceased Wahid Bux, who was his brother-in-law, were sitting in their fields in Deh Muhammad Pur, Taluka Ubauro in District Sukkur on that day, when a mare belonging to the respondents trespassed into their Chilies crop and they served her for impounding her in a cattle pound. All the three respondents went there, while respondent Umer was armed with a rifle, and the respondents Usman and Salleh were carrying lathis, and asked for release of the mare. They pressed the complainant Ghazi and the deceased Wahid Bux to release the mare and on their refusing to release her, the respondent Umer shot Wahid Bux from the revolver and the respondents Usman and Salleh gave lathi blows to the complainant. The incident was witnessed, besides the complainant Ghazi, by Mst. Willayatan wife of Wahid Bux, and Allah Bux son of Wahid Bux who were cutting grass in the field. During the course of investigation, Police recovered a revolver from the respondent Umer on 24-9-1975. After due investigation, the respondents were sent up to stand trial for the aforesaid offences.
3. ' The trial of the respondents was held in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur.
4. Prosecution adduced evidence of complainant Ghazi, Mst. Willayatan, Allah Bux, Habeebur Rehman, Abdul Rehman son of Khushi Muhammad and Abdul Rehman son of Muhammad Anwar Mashirs, Medical Officer Doctor Sudhamo, Tapedar Abdullah Shah and Investigating Officer Muhammad Hayat S.H.O.
5. ' The respondents made denial of their involvement in causing death of the deceased Wahid Bux and pleaded innocence. They did not adduce any evidence in defence.
6. ' The learned trial Judge struck five points for determination, the first relating to. The factum of death of the deceased, the second regarding the injuries sustained by the complainant Ghazi, the third and fourth regarding the liability of the respondents, and the fifth of the nature of offence committed if any. He recorded his findings in affirmative on the first two points and in negative on the points Nos.3 and 4 and in consequences thereof acquitted the respondents.
7. ' This revision application is directed against the findings of the trial Judge on the points Nos.3 and 4 relating to the liability of the respondent in commission of the crime. The learned counsel for the applicants has urged that the respondents were implicated by three eye-witnesses, namely-- Complainant Ghazi, Mst. Willayatan and Allah Bux and there was no plausible reason for discarding their evidence. He has further urged that the ocular evidence was corroborated by the evidence of recovery of a revolver from the respondent Umer. According to him, the ocular evidence also received corroboration from the medical evidence which confirmed that the deceased Wahid Bux had been done to death from a fire-arm and that the complainant Ghazi was injured with lathi blows. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was not confidence inspiring for the reason that the witnesses are interested and their evidence did not find corroboration. According to him, eye-witness Allah Bux is a boy and he was aged about 4 years at the time of incident and his evidence did not deserve much credence. He further contended that the evidence to the recovery of a revolver from respondent Umer was not supported by the Mashirs. He advanced the plea that the complainant Ghazi was in toe with Mst. Willayatan and he must have done the deceased Wahid Bux to death in collusion with his wife and he maneuvered false implication of the respondents who were schoolgoing boys at that time. The learned A.A.-G. Has endorsed the arguments of learned Advocate for the respondents.
8. ' Prosecution case against the respondents mainly rests on the ocular evidence of complainant Ghazi, Mst. Willayatan and Allah Bux. All the three have implicated the respondents that they were responsible for causing death of the deceased. One of them, namely Allah Bux was admittedly a small boy aged about 4 years at the time of incident. He was aged about 8-9 years at the time his evidence was recorded. It is mentioned in the record that at the time the evidence was recorded, the learned trial Judge had tested his capability of making rational statement and he found that he could hardly make intelligible answers. As regards the other two witnesses Ghazi and Mst.
9. Wilayatan, it was brought on the record that it could be suspected that they had illicit relations. It was also brought on the record that the complainant Ghazi had murdered a brother of the deceased Wahid Bux and he was convicted therefor. It was therefore, natural that relations between the deceased and the complainant Ghazi must not have been cordial. These circumstances pursuaded the learned trial Judge in doubting the testimony of the complainant and also that of Mst. Willayatan. These circumstances did not dislodge the evidence of these two eye-witnesses altogether but they did cause reflection on their veracity and their evidence needed corroboration for being relied upon. The corroborative evidence adduced by the prosecution was in the form of recovery from the respondent Umer of a revolver. The mashirs did not support the recovery of the revolver from this respondent. There was evidence of only the Investigating Officer to that effect. No doubt, the evidence of the Police Officer is as good as that of any other witness but since the Mashirs associated in the alleged recovery did not support the factum of recovery, his evidence alone could not lend substantial corroboration to the evidence of the eye-witnesses.
10. Moreover, no crime empty was recovered from the Vardat and the revolver could not be referred to the Ballistic Expert to obtain his opinion whether it had been used in the commission of the crime. It follows that the evidence adduced by the prosecution could not conclusively prove that the respondents were responsible for causing death of deceased Wahid Bux and their acquittal was not unjustified in the circumstances of the case.
11. ' The result is that there is no merit in the revision application and it is dismissed.