1. ' RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID KHAN,C.J.--This appeal, by leave, pertains to a murder case and is directed against the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 4th December, 1978, whereby setting aside the judgment of the District Criminal Court, Poonch dated 15-11-1976 the respondents, herein (three in number), who were convicted by the District Criminal Court under section 3 of the Islamic Penal Laws Act to undergo various terms of imprisonment, which need not be recapitulated here, were acquitted.
2. ' The prosecution story, in brief, as stated in the judgment of the High Court is:- "that Haroon-ur-Rashid, complainant, lodged a report with the police of police station Bagh on 27- 10-1975 at 11.15 a.m. With the allegation that the complainant and Tufail Hussain deceased were going to ask the villagers to assist them for carriage and stacking of grass on the next day. When they reached near the house of Muhammad Sharif, accused, at 8.30 p.m. They over-heard conversation of some persons on account of which they went to the house of Muhammad Sherif, accused-appellant, where they found Muhammad Afsar accused, Muhammad Akbar, Faryad Hussain, Irshad Hussain, Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Yusuf, Muhammad Azam, accused- absconder, Ahmed Hussain, Muhammad -Sherif, appellants, Maulvi Latif Shah, Mst. Hussain Jan, Mst. Hakim Bi and Mst.Nazim Jan etc. Tufail Hussain-deceased, enquired the cause of presence of the aforesaid persons in the house of Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Afsar accused-appellant replied that they had assembled for the marriage of Ahmed Hussain, his son with Mst. Hussain Jan, sister of Muhammad Sharif accused-appellant. On learning this, Tufail Hussain engaged with his brother Talib Hussain and as such that should be settled first. On this, Muhammad Afsar was provoked and attacked Tufail Hussain with 'Lathi'. Muhammad Sherif, Muhammad Azam, Ahmed Hussain, Muhammad Akbar, and Muhammad Afsar caught hold of Tufail Hussain and dragged him to the interior room where Tufail Hussain was laid down and Muhammad Sharif caused injuries with knife on his thigh and others gave blows with fists and kicks, as a result of which Tufail Hussain expired. Haroon-ur-Rashid, complainant, escaped from the grip of the accused persons and reported the matter to Subedar Muhammad Ismail, Abdul Sattar and Ghulam Hussain, the same night. Next morning the report was lodged with the police."
3. In the first instance we would like to note that this Court rarely interferes with the finding arrived at by the High Court after due appreciation of the evidence. The mere fact that this Court might have taken a different view of the evidence would not be considered sufficient to overrule the finding of the High Court. However, if a defect makes the finding legally untenable then, of course, it is open for this Court to come to its own independent finding upon the reexamination of the evidence untrammelled by the finding of the Court below .
4. Precisely, the principle which has been consistently followed by this Court for justifying interference with order of acquittal passed by the High Court is that unless the judgment demonstrates with certainty that none of the grounds upon which the High Court has acquitted a person is available this Court would not interfere with the verdict of innocence recorded by the High Court; though upon evidence on record, facts and circumstances of the case, we might have come to a different conclusion. We are fortified in our view in Lalu v. The State PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 258.
5. The principle laid down in a nutshell is that mere possibility for this Court of coming to a different conclusion on re-appraisal of the evidence on the record and the facts and circumstances of the case would not be considered sufficient to justify interference with the judgment of acquittal; recorded by the High Court. The grounds forming the basis of acquittal if, however, found demonstratively unsupportable on evidence then, of course, interferene is justified. In Muhammad Rahim v. The State 1968 SCM R 372, it has been observed:- "The points raised by the learned counsel merely go to the appreciation of evidence. The learned counsel has, however, failed to point out that the view taken by the Courts below, of the evidence against the petitioner was either unreasonable or opposed to any principle governing appreciation of evidence. There are no sufficient reasons, therefore, for this Court to enter upon a fresh re- appraisal of the evidence."
6. ' This view was reiterated in Taj Muhammad v. The State 1968 SCM R 999. While dealing with the issue Sajjad Ahmad, J., speaking for the Court observed:- "It is not the function of this Court to re-assess the evidence which has been duly scrutinized by the Courts below in the absence of anything to show that they have departed from the recognized judicial standards in the appreciation of that evidence."
7. ' It is by the criteria listed above that we propose to judge the maintainability or otherwise of the impugned order of acquittal recorded by the High Court.
8. ' Sardar Rafique Mahmood during the course of his arguments wanted us to reappraise the evidence. When confronted with the settled principle of law, discussed above, the learned Advocate-General, frankly conceded that the re-appraisal of the evidence is not justified and in fact the judgment of the High Court, in this case, is based on sound appreciation of evidence and, therefore, he does not want to contest this appeal.
9. We have also examined the relevant record and the impugned judgment. The learned Judges of the High Court have passed a well-considered and elaborate judgment. After due appreciation of the evidence they found, and in our view very rightly, that the story of the prosecution is doubtful right from the beginning and the general appraisement of the evidence of the prosecution is indicative of the fact that the complainant party deliberately and with full knowledge of the function of 'Nikah' ceremony of Ahmed Hussain with Mst. Hussan Jan went to the house of Muhammad Sharif accused where the fight took place. They further opined that the deceased and the complainant party had no cause to have illegal entry into the house of Muhammad Sharif and enter into the controversy of 'Nikah' or engagements of Mst. Hussan Jan.
10. ' On the above and some other substantial circumstances it was found that the accused persons were justified to apprehend the intention of the deceased and complainant and in exercise of their right of defence of person and property they were well within their bounds to cause injuries to the deceased resulting in his death.
11. ' The High Court further found that the defence story that as a matter of fact the complainant and the deceased along with 14 other persons; including Muhammad Yusuf, Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Ghulam, P.Ws., went together to the house of Muhammad Sharif to kidnap Mst. Hussan Jan and in execution of this act the deceased suffered injuries is more plausible than the version of the prosecution. This is the reason, the High Court opined, Haroon-ur-Rashid, complainant, in spite of having knowledge of death of Tufail Hussain felt advised to keep mum for the whole night and day and made a delayed report to the police at 11.15 a.m. Next morning.
12. Besides, in the opinion of the High Court, the prosecution version is doubtful because the complainant party in the natural event must have informed all the villagers of the incident but they failed to do s casting serious doubt in the prosecution story. The absence of this natural conduct on the part of the complainant side, it was rightly held by the High Court, makes the prosecution case doubtful. The material to record the finding of acquittal was also available with the High Court from the contradictions in the evidence of S.H.O. And the complainant regarding the manner the F.I.R. Was prepared at the place of occurrence after the preliminary investigation.
13. ' It is significant that Muhammad Yusuf and Muhammad Ghulam, P,Ws., deposed that they were detained at the police station for 3/4 days. This fact lends support to the defence version that the investigating officer was of the view in the beginning that the complainant party was the aggressor and they had taken law in their own hands by trespassing in the house of Muhammad Sharif, accused.
14. The above circumstances would show that the verdict of innocence in favour of the respondents returned by the High Court is well-founded and needs no interference.
15. For the above-stated reasons this appeal entails rejection. Thus we order accordingly. The respondents shall be discharged of the bail bonds.
16. Appeal rejected.