1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The eleven respondents herein were tried for offences falling within sections 148, 307 and 302, Pakistan Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. They were all acquitted by order dated the 12th of August 1963. The Government of West Pakistan filed an appeal against the acquittal and the complainant in this case, submitted a revision petition in the High Court of West Pakistan. The appeal as well as the revision petition were summarily dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court, by order dated the 10th March 1964. The order was a laconic one and reads as follows:--- "Heard the learned counsel and perused the judgment. In our view, this is not a fit case for appeal.
2. Dismissed."
3. Special leave to appeal was granted in this case by order, dated the 13th October, 1964, on the petition of Sher Muhammad complainant, as it was felt that the summary order of the High Court, containing no statement of facts or examination of evidence or the legal issues arising out of the case did not give the impression of being a judicial act in the proper sense, It was added that it would be a question for consideration whether it was not requisite in appeal by the State, for the learned Judges to express their reasons for upholding the acquittal and that the eventual order, if the summary dismissal is found not in order, may be, to require the High Court to make a full examination of the evidence. Bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against the accused persons.
4. The accused persons are not represented before us, presumably because they were under the impression that at best there may be a remand to the High Court for rehearing of the appeal against the acquittal. The appellant is represented by Mr. Iftikharul Haq Khan and the State by the learned Advocate General who supports the appeal.
5. This was a day-light occurrence, in the course of which three persons, Elahi Bakhsh, Allah Bakhsh and Noor Elahi, were murdered and injuries were caused to Fazle Elahi, Muhammad Sarwar, Mst.
6. Munawar Jan and Mst. Thani P. Ws. Who were all eve-witnesses of the occurrence. Three of the accused persons w: re said to have been armed with hatchets, namely, Sher Zaman, Dheru and Abdur Rahman, Bahadur Ali was said to have carried a spear, Sadiq a gun and the rest lathis. The gun was alleged to have been fired in the course of the incident but the medical evidence established no injury with gunshot on the persons of the deceased or the injured.
7. The clash between the parties was admitted. According to the prosecution, the incident arose as the result of the accused's cattle trespassing into their chari field and, when the animals were rounded up, for being taken to the pound, the accused came up and attacked them. Sher Zaman and Sadiq accused admitted their presence at the spot at the relevant time but they tried to make out that they were the victims of an aggressive assault by the complainants. According to Sher Zaman, the gun (P. 7) of which he was the licensee, was snatched from him by the complainants.
8. Alarm raised by him attracted persons from both sides and there was a fight between them, as a result of which the complainant party, excluding Mst. Thani and Mst. Munawar Jan, generally received injuries. Sadiq supported this statement and asserted that he was one of the rescuers of Sher Zaman. Both these accused had been injured in the fight.
9. The learned Sessions Judge, after discussing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence could not be accepted because of its interested nature and the discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. At the same time, he was not prepared to accept the defence version to be true. In the result, he gave the benefit of the doubt to the accused persons and acquitted them.
10. There was evidence of certain recoveries in the case, effected by the Investigating Officer. Sher Zaman accused is said to have produced a hatchet and a gun (P. 7). Along with some live cartridges, before the Sub-Inspector. Dheru and Aslam accused surrendered a hatchet and a lathi respectively. Ghulam accused gave up a lathi and Bahadur Ali accused produced a spear-blade from his jowar field.
11. The circumstances mentioned above clearly made it incumbent on the High Court to examine the facts of the case, in order to see whether the acquittal was justified in the circumstances or not.
12. The order of the High Court does not reveal that the learned Judges applied their minds to all the relevant aspects of the matter. This being a daylight occurrence, as observed above, and the clash being admitted, summary disposal of the appeal against acquittal, was clearly not a proper exercise of jurisdiction, without any attempt to support the acquittal by reasons. Prima facie, the version given by the injured P. Ws. Had to be examined for what it was worth and if the plea of self- defence was raised, that had also to be assessed on its merits. The learned trial Judge seems to have disbelieved both the prosecution and the defence versions and apparently he did not come to any firm conclusions. It was all the more necessary for the High Court, therefore, to have scrutinized the evidence in the case and to have recorded a speaking order. This Court had occasion previously to comment on the undesirability of summary disposal of criminal appeals, without reference to facts or the points of law arising for consideration. We do not think we should ourselves go into the facts, or comment on the quality of the evidence in this case. This is the function of the High Court primarily, and we are constrained to observe that in the present case that function has not been discharged in a proper manner. We, therefore, allow the appeal and remand the case for rehearing by the High Court and disposal in accordance with law.