This is a revision by Zafar Hussain complainant against the judgment, dated 14-7-1986 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guiranwala acquitted Shoiab Ullah and Altaf Ullah accused from the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. The occurrence in this case took place at Peshiwela on 30-10-1985 in the area of Mehandi Abad about 5 miles from police station Venikey Tarar, District Gujranwala. The F.I.R. Was recorded at the police station on the same day at 3-30 p.m, by S.I.
Muhammad Ramzan at the instance of Zafar Hussain P.W.
7. It was alleged m the F.I.R. That in 1974 Ghulam Muhammad grandfather of Shoiab Ullah accused was murdered for which Nazar Muhammad father of Imdad Ullah deceased and others were prosecuted but acquitted. Again in the year 1949 Ata Ullah father of Altaf Ullah accused was murdered for which Muhammad Ali P.W.
An uncle of Imdad Ullah deceased and others were challaned but acquitted. However, the parties effected compromise after acquittal of the accused as a result of which a sister of Zafar Hussain complainant was married to Irshad Ullah, a son of Ghulam Muhammad deceased. It was alleged in the F.I.R. That in spite of the said compromise the accused nourished grudge. On 30-10-1985 at about Peshiwela Imdad Ullah deceased was carrying wooden mengers on tractor trolley. When he reached near a Darbar, Shoiab Ullah and Altaf armed with guns stood up from ambush. They challenged Imdad Ullah. The first fire was shot by Shoiab Ullah which hit the chest of Imdad Ullah who staggered down the trolley. Shoiab fired four more shots, one after the other; at Imdad Ullah, who was lying on the ground which hit various parts of his body. Then Altaf Ullah fired three successive shots which also hit the deceased. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Ali and Nazar Muhammad P.Ws. As well. The police after registration of the case under took investigation. A gun Ex. P.4 was recovered at the instance of Shoiab Ullah accused by S.I.
Muhammad Ramzan vide memo. Exh. P.L. In presence of P.W. 6 Nazar Muhammad and another. No weapon was recovered from Altaf Ullah accused.
2. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.W. 1 Dr. Muhammad Arif who on 31-10-1985 at 11 a.m. Conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Imdad Ullah aged about 30 years.
On external examination he noted six fire-arm injuries of various dimentions on different parts of the dead body. The-.e was scorching tattooing and blackening of the margins of the injuries. There was also some burnt area on front of right side of- the chest. P.W. 7 Zafar Hussain a brother of Imdad Ullah deceased and P.W. 8 Muhammad Ali an uncle of the deceased were examined as eye-witnesses. Nazar Muhammad father of the deceased, another eye-witness, was given up as unnecessary. The recovery of gun P.4 was witnessed by P.W. 6 Nazar Muhammad. The case was investigated by S.I. Muhammad Ramzan P.W.
9. The evidence of the rest of the witnesses was of formal nature. The accused when examined after close of prosecution evidence denied the charge and pleaded innocence. They did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned trial Judge did not place reliance on the evidence of two eye-witnesses and there being no other independent corroborating evidence, acquitted the accused vide the impugned judgment.
3. I have carefully gone through the evidence on record, and have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length.
The learned counsel laid much emphasis on the recovery of gun P.4, at the instance of Shoiab Ullah accused to contend that this recovery furnished corroboration to the ocular account of this case.
He relied on PLD 1985 SC 361 in support of his contention. I have considered this argument but find it without any substance. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel was not applicable to facts of this case because in that case a blood-stained knife had been recovered from the accused. The said knife was stated to have been used by the accused at the time of the occurrence and was found to be stained with human blood by the Serologist. It was for these reasons that recovery of knife was considered as an independent corroborating evidence against the accused of that case. In the instant case admittedly, no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence. There is no evidence to show that gun P.4 was in fact used by Shoiab Ullah for commission of the present crime. The cited judgment is, therefore, distinguishable from facts of the present case. The recovery of gun P.4 cannot be considered as corroborating evidence in the instant case.
In this case prosecution case is supported only by the two eye--witnesses. It is admitted at the bar that there was deep enmity/blood feud between the parties since long. Both the eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased. The number and seat of injuries given in the F.I.R. Is at variance from the medical evidence. It is correct that during trial the two eye-witnesses gave description of the injuries on the person of the deceased in line with the medical evidence but their statements were as a result of the improvements in their previous statements. These were material improvements which effect the merits of the case. The two eye--witnesses being interested/hostile could only have been believed if corroborated by any other independent evidence which is not forth coming in the instant case. The learned counsel for petitioner was not able to point out any misreading of evidence by the trial Court. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the narration of the facts the learned trial Judge did not correctly state injuries given in the evidence of Medical Officer. This cannot be considered as misreading of evidence nor the description of injuries in the judgment could materially have effected the ultimate result of the case. The Government has not filed any appeal to challenge the acquittal of the two accused. This was a revision seeking retrial of the case. The learned counsel was not able to point out any illegality in the proceedings of the trial justifying remand of the case for retrial according to law. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is conceded that another view of-the evidence on the record could be taken then also it would not justify retrial of the case. I find no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed in limine.