' This revision petition has been filed by Muhammad Afsar son of Ghulam Muhammad against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby he acquitted the accused persons from the charge of the murder of Sher Dil (deceased), and for causing injuries to the various PWs vide his judgment dated 29-10-1974.
2. The learned Judge of this Court has admitted the revision petition with respect to Sakhi Muhammad respondent only, to examine, whether the evidence against Sakhi Muhammad respondent was sufficient to connect him with the crime, in the presence of the recovery of cartridges, which matched with licenced gun of Sakhi Muhammad respondent. It would not be desirable to give all the facts, except those circumstances, which disclose the part attributed to Sakhi Muhammad respondent fortified by the evidence of two crime empties found at the spot, which ultimately wedded with his gun.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the State and the respondent, and have perused the record carefully.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in the present case Sher Dil (deceased) suffered fire-arm injuries, which were caused by Sakhi Muhammad respondent, the crime empties found at the spot matched with his licensed gun P.5 which connects him with the murder of Sher Dil (deceased).
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon reasons advanced by the trial Court, as mentioned in para. 13 of the impugned judgment, wherein the learned Sessions Judge held, that the recovery of crime empties from near the dead body of Sher Dil (deceased) makes the case of the prosecution further doubtful.
6. Learned Sessions Judge has further observed that it was nobody's case, that the accused had gone into the field of the deceased and fired at him from there, he has referred to the site-plan, to establish, that the case of the prosecution itself was that Sakhi Muhammad respondent fired shot at Sher Dil (deceased) from a considerable distance, hence the recovery of the crime empties near the dead body of Sher Dil (deceased) was fatal to the prosecution case.
7. The learned defence counsel further contended that the gun was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer, but it was not deposited in the 'Malkhana' of the police station, crime empties were not sent immediately to the Forensic Science Laboratory, these were only sent after the recovery of the gun.
8. The gun was handed over to Muharrir on 2-10-1970 but it reached at its destination on 5-10-1970, no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for this inordinate delay in the delivery of the gun, as is apparent from the evidence of Muhammad Sarwar, Forensic Science Expert (P.W.18).
9. The cartridges remained with the police, and the possibility cannot be ruled out that they might have been tampered with in order to strengthen the prosecution case.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that due to inordinate delay it would not be in the interest of justice and fairplay to order the retrial merely on the ground that different view is possible in this case after the lapse of 15 years, as order of acquittal was passed in 1974. He has placed reliance upon Allah Rakhio Khan v. Mohkmuddin and 2 others (1977 PCr.LJ 14), Sardar Muhammad v. Sarwar and 5 others (1977 PCr.LJ 594), Zabtey Khan v. The State (1970 PCr.LJ 515), Abdul Ghafoor v. Sultan Ali and 4 others 1981 PCr.LJ 868 and Dosa v. The State (PLD 1976 S.C.1).
11. In my view, the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of the case, his judgment cannot be termed as artificial, and perverse, or has resulted into miscarriage of justice, because another view is possible, coupled with inordinate delay in the disposal of this revision petition. The learned counsel has referred to the above cited case law, to show that after the lapse of fourteen years, the Court would not order the retrial, as the respondent had undergone the agony of lengthy trial. Respectfully following the above principle of law, I find no force in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.