1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--On the morning of 9th of November, 1971 at 7-00 a.m. Tripple murder took place at a distance of about four furlongs from Police Station Manawala. Those killed were Mst.
2. Muradan, her husband Sadiq alias Sadda and their son-in-law Sadiq alias Suddoo. It was on the statement of Ahmad son of Taja (P.W.1) resident of Chak Nahra, Police Station Chuharkana, that a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was registered against" four persons, namely, Muhammad Nawaz, Nek Muhammad, Shah Muhammad and Sultan. All the four accused were tried by the Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, who by his judgment dated 19-9-1977 convicted them as hereunder- -
(i) Muhammad Nawaz and Nek Muhammad were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to death on each count.
(ii) Sultan and Shah Muhammad were convicted under section 302/34 P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count.
(iii) All the four accused were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs,1,000 each on each count or in default to suffer further R.I. For one year.
3. ' The convicts appealed to the Lahore High Court. A reference for confirmation of their death sentence was also forwarded. Both these matters were decided by judgment dated 26-9-1978. The appeal was allowed and all the accused were acquitted.
4. ' Ahmed son of Taja, the first informant, filed petition for leave to appeal in this Court.
5. ' Leave was granted to consider whether a portion of the statement of Ahmad was susceptible to another interpretation namely that the accused being known enemies of the complainant party was it essential for Ahmad the first informant to consider it proper as a measure of abundant caution to call Lambardar of the village before lodging the report.
6. ' The motive for the occurrence was that the land belonging to Mst. Muradan was fraudulently sold by one Roshan in favour of one of the respondents, namely, Muhammad Nawaz. Mst. Muradan came to know of this transaction. She filed a civil suit. She also filed a criminal complaint against Muhammad Nawaz, Nek Muhammad, Shah Muhammad alongwith Roshan and some others in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner, Sheikhupura.. The date of hearing was 9-11-1970. Mst.
7. Muradan apprehended that she would not be permitted to appear in the Court. So in order to avoid any unpleasant incident, she alongwith her husband Sadiq and her son-in-law Suddoo left the village on the afternoon of 8-11-1970.
8. ' The party spent the night in the house of Jabbar (PW.15) in village Manawala, a family friend. Early morning i.e, 9-11-1970 they left for the Court. Ahmad (P.W.1), Salabat (P.W.5) and Falak Sher (P.W.14) had joined them from the house of Jabbar. When the party reached the Veterinary Hospital, the respondents who lay in ambush and ,were carrying fire-arms with them fired at Muradan, Sadiq and Suddoo. They were hit. All of them died at the spot. Muhammad Nawaz and Nek Muhammad were armed with guns while Shah Muhammad and. Sultan had rifles. The accused after the occurrence took to their heels. As they could not be arrested, they were declared proclaimed offenders.
9. ' The prosecution examined Salabat, Falak Sher and Ahmad as eye-witnesses. The other evidence consists of recoveries and finally the medical evidence which is the post-mortem report of the three deceased. It is as follows-- ' Dr. Shafique Ahmad on autopsy of Mst. Muradan found eleven wounds i.e, six entry wounds, three exit wounds and two superficial gunshot wounds while Dr. Imtiaz Ahmed Chaudhry who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sadiq son of Massan found eight wounds on his person. The said doctor also conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sadiq son of Salabat and noticed four entry gunshot wounds, three exit wounds and an entry wound on his person. Both the doctors were of the opinion that the death of the three deceased was caused by fire-arms.
10. ' After arrest of the accused, the police recovered guns from Muhammad Nawaz and Nek Muhammad while Sultan accused led to the recovery of a rifle. The four empty cartridges collected from the spot and fire-arms recovered from the accused were sent to the Fire-arm Expert. He found that two of the cartridges had not been fired from the fire-arms. With regard to the remaining, he was unable to express any opinion.
11. ' The respondents denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and declined to produce any evidence in defence.
12. ' Before examining the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, we would like to observe that Salabat and Falak Sher did not support the prosecution case. Their evidence as such is to be left aside. Hence the only evidence to be examined is the testimony of Ahmad, recoveries and the medical evidence. If the perusal of the aforesaid evidence establishes the case against the respondents and excludes all hypothesis of innocence of the respondents subject to the principles laid down by this Court in setting aside a judgment of acquittal then perhaps the appellant may succeed not otherwise.
13. ' Before the trial Court Ahmad stated as follows:- "After the murder the police came at the spot. The police ran after the accused. The accused had run 2 or 21 Killas at that time. I told the police that the accused persons were running away. I sent a man to my village. On my message Amir son of Salabat, his son Nazar belonging to our village and Bahawal Lambardar of village Millianwala, came to the spot and I consulted them before lodging the report as the accused were our enemies. These persons who were summoned by me were sure that the accused must be the murderers."
14. ' We called upon the learned counsel to first explain as to how he would' get over this evidence because spontaneous reaction to the aforesaid portion of the evidence is that when Ahmad Was sure about the identity of the assailants then why he should have sent for Lambardar and others.
15. This creates serious doubt about the authenticity of the First Information report and credibility of the witness.
16. ' The learned counsel for the appellant could not give any satisfactory explanation. He submitted that as a rule of prudence such evidence required corroboration from other independent testimony. He argued that in any case, the entire evidence of Ahmad has to be taken into consideration especially when the report was lodged without any loss of time and it was a day time occurrence. The other evidence which the learned counsel wanted to press into service for the purposes of corroboration was that of recoveries and the medical evidence. We do not think that this evidence provides the necessary corroboration as envisaged by law.
17. ' The evidence of recoveries is of no consequence.
18. ' The medical evidence at the best proves the weapons used, the number and nature of injuries but not the identity of the assailants. A judgment of acquittal k to be sparingly interfered with. The principles for setting aside such a judgment were laid down in, the case' of Noora and another v.
19. The State PLD 1973 SC 469 in the following words-- "As an ultimate Court, we must give due weight and consideration to the opinions of the Courts below, and normally we should not interfere with their findings where we are satisfied that they are reasonable and were not arrived at by the disregard of any accepted principle regarding the appreciation of evidence. The mere fact that this Court might have taken a different view of the evidence should not be sufficient to overrule the findings of the Courts below; but we should first satisfy ourselves that there is some serious defect in the process by which the finding has been arrived at. Where such defect is discovered and the finding is not considered tenable, then it should be open to the Court to come to its own independent finding upon a re-examination of the evidence untrammelled by the opinions of the Courts below."
20. ' We have not found any defect in the reasoning given by the High Court. As a matter of fact the High Court acted in accordance with law and the principles governing the safe administration of criminal justice. We would, therefore, dismiss this appeal. Respondents Nos.1 to 3, namely, Muhammad Nawaz, Nek Muhammad and Shah Muhammad shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Non-bailable warrants issued against Sultan Respondent No,9, shall stand cancelled.