This criminal revision arises from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Dera Ghazi Khan whereby, he on 12-9-1981 acquitted Ghulam Haider, Riaz Ahmed and Muhammad Ali respondents of the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is that respondents Nos, 1 to 3 in further--ance of their common intention caused the death of Imam Bakhsh or, the night between 3/4-7-1980. The occurrence was allegedly witnesses by Shah Bakhsh P.W. 9 and Sobha P.W.
10. The post-mortem examination on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Muhammad Arshad P.W.1 , who found as many as 6 injuries on the person of the deceased. The injuries were caused with sharp-edged weapon and the rest of the -- injuries were abrasions. In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries were ante-mortem and the death was the result of haemorrhage and shock due to injury No. 1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 2, whereby the ulna bone was fractured, was also declared grievous.
3. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses Shah Bakhsh P.W. 9 and Sobha P.W. 10 have given the ocular account of the occurrence and stated that they were sleeping near the deceased. They were up on the barking of the dogs and found Ghulam Haider respondent armed with Kati, Riaz Ahmed armed with hatchet and Muhammad Ali empty --handed entering the haveli by opening outer shutter. Muhammad Ali caught hold of the legs of the deceased. Ghulam Haider raised Lalkara to the effect that they had come to take revenge of the dislocation of hi- teeth and then gave a blow on the neck of the deceased with his Kati. Riaz Ahmed respondent gave hatchet blow to the deceased. When the eye-witnesses tried to intervene, they were threatened with dire consequences. Dost Muhammad, P.W. 8 stated that blood-stained Chhuri Exh. P. 4 and blood- stained hatchet Exh. P.5 were got recovered by Ghulam Haider and Riaz Hussain respondents from graveyard and the Kotha of Ghulam Haider. Palia, the other witness of the recovery was, however, not produced. The Investigating Officer also supported the recoveries.
The respondents when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the incriminating circumstances and raised the plea of false implication. They did not lead any evidence in defence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubts that it is a case of prompt F.I.R. Wherein, the name of the accused and the witnesses are given; that the eye-witnesses are not inimical towards the respondents; that the eye-witnesses are the natural witnesses of the occurrence and have stood the test of cross-examination. The ocular account corroborated by the recoveries of blood-stained Chhuri and hatchet from Ghulam Haider and Riaz Ahmad respondents; and that Dost Muhammad P.W. 8 and the Investigating Officer are the reliable witnesses.
5. I have considered the arguments submitted by the learned counsel with care and have gone through the record and the judgment of the trial Court. I find that the trial Court has applied its conscious mind to the evidence brought on the record and has appreciated the same fin accordance with .The guiding principles laid down by the Superior Courts. 1 further find that the trial Court has rejected the evidence for sound and cogent reasons; that it is a case of night occurrence; that the presence of Shah Bakhsh P.W. 9 near the place of occurrence at the fateful time appears to be highly doubtful; that the reason for his presence near the place of occurrence as given by him is not plausible. The number and the nature of the injuries indicate that the assailant/ assailants might have taken a minute to cause these injuries and as such the chances of the identification of the assailants were very rare. The recovery was not effected immediately after the occurrence and A although independent witnesses were available yet Dost Muhammad, close relative of the complainant was asked to attest the recovery memos. It is well-settled that once an accused person is acquitted, the presumption of his innocence becomes double and strong and exceptional grounds are required for interference with the judgment of acquittal which I do not find in the case in hand. To my mind, the trial Court has rightly rejected the ocular evidence and the evidence of the recoveries of blood-stained weapons from the respondents.
6. For what has been stated above, it is not a fit case for interference with the judgment of acquittal dismissed.
S. G. D.Acquittal maintained.