' This Criminal Appeal against acquittal arises from the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat whereby he on 19-11-1985 acquitted Manzoor Hussain and 5 others, the respondents of the charges under section 302/148/149, P.P.C.
2. On 7-4-1983 at 9.00 a.m. Inayat Ullah was murdered in the house of Muhammad Asghar situate in village Ganjja. On the same day at 9.00 a.m., Muhammad Asghar lodged FIR at Police Station Kharian, alleging that Qadir Dad and 6 others (not accused) armed with rifles entered into his house. Fazal Dad raised lalkara whereupon Qadir Dad, Faiz Ahmad, Muhammad. Sadiq, Fateh Muhammad fired at Inayat Ullah deceased and their companion Sultan fired in the air and caused his death. The invesigation revealed that the accused named in the FIR were innocent, instead Muhammad Asghar complainant 'and other respondents were the offenders. So they were arrested and challaned for the murder of Inayat Ullah.
' To prove its case, prosecution produced 17 witnesses. Dr. Muhammad Rashid Javed, P. W.1 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Inayat Ullah. He found following injuries:-
(1) "A fire-arm entrance wound 1.5 x 1.4 c.m. x going deep on left from lower part of chest, locating at lower free ends.. There was a collar of abrasion present, a shirt on a corresponding site was tatooed (tatooing mark)-blackening. The margins of the wound were inverted.
(2) A fire-arm exit wound 3 x 3 c.m. On back right lumbar region. The margins were everted. There was a corresponding hole in the shirt.
(3) A fire-arm entrance wound 1.5 x 1.5 c.m. On the upper medio posterior side of left thigh near gluteal crease. The margins were inverted. -There was corresponding hole in the shalwar.
(4) A fire-arm exit wound 3.5 x 3.5 c.m. On the outer middle part of left thigh. The margins were everted. Muscle piece was coming out from the wound. There was another small wound with everted margins 1/2 c.m. Above the injury described, with a piece of bone coming out of it."
' In his opinion, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries No,1 and 3.
Injury .No,1 was individually sufficient to cause death. All the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon. Muhammad Afzal P.W.4 deposed about the. Motive of the respondents to kill the deceased. He stated that in a marriage ceremony which took place in Chak Chohan few days before the Occurrence, Ghulam Sarwar respondent gave tip to the Bhands in the name of Mst.Fatima, mother of Ghulam Sarwar s/o Qadir Dad. In retaliation Ghulam Sarwar s/o Qadir Dad gave tip money to the Bhands in the name of the mother of Ghulam Sarwar respondent, whereupon Ghulam Sarwar respondent got up and slapped Ghulam Sarwar s/o Qadir Dad. Inayat Ullah deceased supported Ghulam Sarwar Qadir Dad. Ghulam Muhammad Lumbardar, who was present there, separated the parties. The witness further stated that on the following day, Ghulam Sarwar and his nephew Amjad respondent were going in front of his house situate in village Panjan Shahana, where he (witness) and Inayat Ullah (deceased) beat them. After a shortwhile Ghulam Sarwar and Akram respondents came there and admonished Inayat Ullah deceased for beating Amjad. A quarrel took place between them, as a result of which Akram respondent took the wife of the deceased (who was his sister) alongwith her children to his village, Ganjja. After a few days, the deceased went to village Ganjja for reconciliation. Walayat Khan P.W.5 stated that he was present in his dera when all the respondents came to him and Monazzam respondent confessed to have murdered Inayat Ullah deceased, in village Ganjja. Riasat Ali P.W.8 stated that he was on the way to his village when respondents other than Muhammad Asghar met him. Monazzam respondent was holding. .12 bore gun with him whereas the rest were empty handed. Lal Khan P.W.9 is an approver.
While giving the details of the occurrence, he stated that at the eventful time Ghulam Sarwar, Akram and Monazzam respondents had gone inside the house of Muhammad Asghar whereas he and Safdar respondents remained outside the house. He further stated that Akram had fired two shots hitting the deceased and that on the alarm raised by the ladies, Ghulam Sarwar, Monazzam and Akram respondents had fired in the air. Muhammad Asghar P.W.10 stated that at the time of occurrence, he heard a gun report. He went inside the house of Hakim . All (father-in-law of the deceased) and found Inayat Ullah murdered. Muhammad Azam P.W.11 stated that the police had recovered rifle Exh.P.5 alongwith 3 cartridges from Ghulam Sarwar respondent and Gun Exh .P .6 alongwith 5 cartridges from Monazzam respondent. Ghulam Haider ASI, P.W.12 recorded the FIR Exh.PC on the statement of Asghar Ali respondent. He took into possession 3 empties of 7-MM.
Exh.P7/1-3 from the spot vide memo Exh.PK. He also recovered rifle Exh.P5 alongwith cartridges and .12 bore gun Exh.P6 from Sarwar and Monazzam respondents. Suba Khan P.W.13 stated that Akram had led to the recovery of rifle Exh.P7 from his 'house which was taken into possession vide memo Exh.PM. Pervez Ahmed Butt Inspector P.W.17 partly investigated the case. He arrested Ghulam Sarwar and Monazzam respondent and recovered rifle, .12 bore gun and cartridges from them. The witness stated that Akram had got recovered rifle from his house in his presence.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the respondents denied all the incriminating circumstances.
4. The learned trial Court while disbelieving approver and the evidence relating to extra-judicial confession, motive, Waj Takkar and recoveries, acquitted the respondents.
5. Learned Assistant Advocate-General argued that the prosecution had successfully brought home the guilt to the respondents; that the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution wag sufficient enough to exclude all the hypothesis of the innocence of the respondents; that the approver is quite dependable and the statement made by him finds support from circumstances appearing in the case and that the trial Court has not given sound and cogent reasons for disbelieving evidence produced by the prosecution.
6.We have anxiously attended to the arguments addressed by the learned Assistant Advocate- General. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with him. We find that there is no direct evidence of the murder of Inayat Ullah; that the learned trial Court has reviewed the entire evidence that has been produced by the prosecution and has given sound and cogent reasons for disbelieving the same. The learned A.A.-G. Has not been able to controvert the reasons given by the trial Court for the rejection of the prosecution evidence. It seems to us that the trial Court in exercise of its judicial discretion has rejected the relevant evidence and circumstances which it did not believe to be true. It is well settled that with regard to the appreciation of evidence, the discretionary powers of the trial Court are unfettered and once an accused person has been acquitted then strong and exceptional grounds would be required for interference, which I do not see in the case in hand. There can be no two opinions that the approver is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars. There is rule of prudence which has almost a force of law that it is not safe to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the approver. In the instant case, we do not find any satisfactory evidence/circumstance which could satisfy our mind that while naming the respondents as offenders, the approver was telling the truth.
' For what has been said above, it is not a fit case for interference with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.