1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This appeal by special leave is directed against acquittal of the nine respondents.
2. Briefly the facts arc that the nine respondents, namely, Hidayat Khan, Lal Khan, Azmat Ali, Mansab Ali, Kafayat Ali, Faqir Hussain, Nawazish Ali, Ghulam Ali and Mubarak Ali were charged for offences under section 148/302/325/149, P.P.C. But vide judgment of the trial Court they were convicted and sentenced as follows: All of them were convicted under section 148, P.P.C. And sentenced to one year's R.I. Each. They were all convicted under section 304 Part-I/149, P.P.C. And were sentenced to five year's R.I. Each plus fine. They were likewise convicted under section 325/149, P.P.C. And sentenced to one year's R.I. Plus fine each. All the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. On appeal of the convicts before the Lahore High Court, Lahore their conviction as well as sentences were set aside and they were acquitted of all the charges.
3. Leave to appeal was granted in this case to the complainant-appellant in order to consider as to whether the conclusion arrived at by the High Court to the effect that the prosecution version was improbable and doubtful whereas the defence version appeared to be more probable was based upon safe principles of dispensation of criminal justice.
4. ' The occurrence took place within the area of Chak No, 123/SB at a distance of 5 miles from Police Station Sillanwali, District Sargodha. The accused and the complainant parties are residents of the said Chak. Their lands are situate about one square away from the village Abadi and are contiguous. Square No, 59 belongs to the complainant party who had a Kotha thereon and Killa No, 25 thereof was under the cultivation of Sher Muhammad deceased. A water-course separated this Killa from the land of the accused party. The occurrence took place on 14 July, 1974 at about 11-30 a.m. According to the prosecution version Muhammad Ismail PW 9 was bathing in the water- course and this was objected to by Hidayat Khan respondent who suspected that the complainant party had cut his turn of water under the pretext of taking a bath. This led to an altercation between the two of them when Faiz Muhammad PW 7 complainant/appellant Khadim Hussain PW 8, Fazal Muhammad PW 10, Sher Muhammad deceased, Fakhar Din and Mubarak Ali who were present nearby rushed to the spot and separated them.Hidayat Khan respondent ran towards the village holding out a threat that he would bring his 'people and teach them a lesson for cutting the water. After sometime i,e. At 1 p.m. All the respondents carrying Dangs except Hidayat Khan who was armed with a hatchet, arrived at the Dera of the complainant party and raised Lalkaras to teach them a lesson for cutting the water and for maltreating Hidayat Khan respondent. Sher Muhammad deceased went forward to intervene but Hidayat Khan respondent struck him a hatchet blow on his head followed by a Dang blow on the flank by Ghulam Ali respondent. Mansab Ali, Nawazish All and Kafayat Ali respondents gave one Dang blow each to Faiz Muhammad PW-7.
5. Mubarak Ali respondent gave two Dang blows to Khadim Hussain PW 8. Faqir Hussain and Azmat Ali respondents gave four Dang blows successively to Muhammad Ismail PW 9. Thereafter, Lal Khan respondent gave a Dang blow to Fazal Muhammad PW 10. In the course of the fight Nawazish Ali respondent was injured on the head at the instance of Khadim Hussain PW 8 while Faqir Hussain respondent also received simple injury. Sher Muhammad deceased died on the spot and the accused party ran away. Faiz Muhammad PW 7 who is complainant-appellant in this case lodged F.I.R. About the occurrence on the same day at 3 p.m.
6. ' According to the medical evidence the deceased had received an incised wound scalp deep on the head and a contusion mark on the left chest besides two swellings on the left temporal region and below the left ear. Death had resulted due to compression of the brain as well as the incised injury which was caused with a sharp-edged weapon. The other injuries caused with blunt weapon were simple in nature.
7. ' The doctor medically examined Faiz Muhammad PW 7 complainant-appellant, Khadim Hussain PW 8, Muhammad Ismail PW 9 and Fazal Muhammad PW 10. He found two contusions and a swelling on the person of Faiz Muhammad PW, two contusions on Khadim Hussain PW, five contusions on Muhammad Ismail PW and a swelling on the right hand of Fazal Muhammad PW. All these injuries were caused with blunt weapon and except the injury of Fazal Muhammad PW which was grievous, the rest of them were simple in nature.
8. ' The same medical officer examined Faqir Hussain respondent and found on his person an incised wound skin keep on the left fore-arm. This injury was caused with sharp-edged weapon and was simple in nature. He also medically examined Nawazish Ali respondent and found on his person an incised wound on the forehead, brain deep and the bone was cut, brain matter was clearly visible.
9. This injury was also caused with a sharp-edged weapon and was grievous in nature.
10. ' The respondents in their statements before the trial Court pleaded not guilty and stated that they had been falsely implicatd due to enmity. However, Nawazish Ali and Faqir Hussain respondents admitted the occurrence but gave their own version as to how it took place. The rest of the respondents denied their presence at the time of the occurrence. According to the defence version as put forth by Nawazish Ali respondent, Hidayat Khan respondent while irrigating his field on his turn, had asked him to find out as to what had caused the decrease of water in the watercourse.
11. Thereupon, Nawazish Ali respondent came to the spot and noticed that Sher Muhammad deceased had cut the warter into his own Killa No,
25. Nawazish Ali respondent protested whereupon Sher Muhammad deceased gave him a Kassi blow on his head. On an alarm raised by him some of the members of a marriage party including Faqir Hussain respondent present in a nearby garden rushed to the scene of crime in order to rescue Nawazish Ali respondent. Sher Muhammad deceased also caused injuries to Faqir Hussain respondent. In the melee that followed, the complainant party including Sher Muhammad deceased received injuries at the hands of the Baratis. Faqir Hussain respondent made a statement also to the same effect. So for as Hidayat Khan respondent is concerned he supported Nawazish Ali respondent by stating that he had asked him to find out the cause of the decrease of water in the water-course. He in his defence also produced a copy of Warabandi indicating that on the day of occurrence he had the turn of water from 12-09 p.m.To 2-45p.m. He also produced a copy of Nikah Nama to show that a marriage ceremony had taken place on that date, Baratis of which had been attracted to the scene of crime.
12. ' The prosecution version is based on the ocular account of Faiz Muhammad complainant- appellant, Khadim Hussain, Muhammad Ismail and Fazal Muhammad PWs. All of them are closely related inter se as well as to the deceased Sher Muhammad. Their presence on the spot at the time of the occurrence is established as they had received injuries in the course of the same. However, the High Court only on that account had not proceeded to accept their testimony but instead it proceeded to scrutinize their testimony with caution in order to find out if they were telling truth.
13. After perusal of the testimony of the PWs the High Court arrived at the conclusion that the version respecting altercation at about 11-30 a.m. On the day of occurrence between the complainant party and Hidayat Khan respondent was false and had been introduced with a view to make the subsequent occurrence at 1 p.m. Look like a premeditated attack and to implicate as many members of the family of the accused party as possible. The reasoning of the High Court is that on the day of occurrence the turn of water of the accused party commenced at 12-09 p.m. And it was to last till 2-45 p.m. Therefore there was no need on the part of any member of the accused party to have gone to the spot at 11-30 a.m. In order to find out as to what was the cause of the decrease of water and to tell the complainant party that they would teach them a lesson for cutting the water. The finding of the High Court is that when Faiz Muhammad complainant, appellant was faced with this difficulty, he gave up the aforesaid motive of the occurrence at the trial stage and introduced another one. He stated instead that Muhammad Ismail PW had twice slapped Hidayat Khan respondent who then threatened him to take revenge for the insult. But this motive also could not be sustained as observed by the High Court because it directly conflicted not only with the medical evidence but also suffered from other material contradictions and improvements in his testimony. The discrepancies in the statement of Faiz Muhammad complainant-appellant were specifically enumerated by the learned Judge of the High Court. For instance he had stated in the F.I.R. That Sher Muhammad deceased had received only two blows one with a hatchet on the head at the hands of Hidayat Khan respondent and the other with a Dang on the flank by Ghulam Ali respondent. But according to the medical evidence, Sher Muhammad deceased had received in all four injuries of which two were on the head caused with blunt weapon and these were fatal injuries while the other two ascribed to Hidayat Khan and Ghulam Ali respondents were simple in nature.
14. Thus, the fatal injuries were not attributed to anyone. Further at the trial stage Faiz Muhammad complainant-appellant ascribed two Dang blows to Ghulam Ali respondent which amounted to a deliberate improvement made by him in order to bring his statement in conformity with the medical evidence. Besides taking note of numerous other contradictions and material improvements in his testimony the opinion of the High Court was that the testimony of the other eye-witnesses also suffered from similar infirmities. Thus, the High Court arrived at the conclusion that if the prosecution version had been correct and if nine respondents had all come from the village armed with deadly weapons with a determination to teach a lesson to the complainant party then the eye-witnesses would have not escaped with only simple injuries and instead two of the respondents who were expected to be assailants got injured, one of them grievously. It was on this appraisal of evidence that the High Court had rejected the prosecution version being not only improbable but also doubtful. When the prosecution version had been rejected the High Court examined the defence version and arrived at the conclusion that it was more probable. According to the High Court it was probable that an altercation had taken place between Nawazish Ali respondent and Sher Muhammad deceased over the cutting of the water. Faqir Hussain respondent and Hidayat Khan respondent as well as the eye-witnesses were attracted to the spot and a free fight ensued then resulting in the injuries on both sides. It was on the basis of these findings that the High Court rejected the prosecution version and accepted the defence version.
15. ' Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant before us attempted to argue that the prosecution version was correct version and should have been relied upon. According to the learned counsel the earlier incident of altercation had taken place near the watercourse whereas Sher Muhammad deceased as well as the prosecution witnesses were attacked at the Dera of the complainant party which was at some distance from the place where the water-course flowed and that the accused party had no business to cause injuries to the complainant side at their Dera unless the subsequent incident at 1 p.m. Was to be considered as a saparate occurrence following or resulting from the earlier incident as put forward in the prosecution version. According -to the learned counsel there was no justification on the part of the High Court to consider the defence version as more probable and to reject the prosecution version as improbable and doubtful.
16. ' Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the conclusions arrived at by learned Judge of the High Court and further submitted that in fact the High Court had arrived at its conclusions by a very careful appraisal of evidence and these cannot, therefore, be set aside merely bacause a different assessm ent of the evidence could also be made.
17. ' After hearing learned counsel for the parties and carefully perusing the record as well as the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant/appellant would only lead to re-appraisal of the evidence. Obviously a difference in opinion regarding assessm ent of evidence cannot be considered as a valid ground for interference in a case of acquittal.
18. ' In the light of the above discussion we are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court does not call for any interference. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
19. ' While granting leave this Court had ordered bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,10,000 to be issued as against the respondents to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge Sargodha. These bail bonds stand discharged.