1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition for special leave is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court acquitting respondents Nos. 1 to 3 of charges under sections 304, Part I and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. The occurrence took place on the 21st of June 1968, at a pehr after sunrise. According to the prosecution case, P. W. 9 Sharaf Din had received Rs. 2,000 from respondent Muhammad Siddiq as earnest money for the sale of the former's land. As the respondent failed to pay the balance of the price within the stipulated time, the land was sold to Sher Muhammad deceased and some other persons including one Hasan Muhammad and the consequent mutation was sanctioned on the 13th of April 1968. Sher Muhammad deceased was the purchaser in respect of only one acre out of two acres and five kanals of land that were sold. It is alleged that all the three respondents had taken possession of the aforesaid lands by force but at the intervention of P. W. 6 Major Nazar Hussain the possession was restored to the purchasers. The respondent accordingly nourished a grievance on this account. It was also alleged that on the first pehr of the day of occurrence P. W. 11 Farzand who was related to Hasan Muhammad being his sister's son was given a severe beating by the respondents while he was passing by their land. Sher Muhammad deceased was apprised of this beating and he promised to look into the matter. At dopehrwela while the three respon-- dent on their way to their houses passed by the use of the deceased, the latter asked the former as to why they had beaten P. W. Farzand. At this the deceased was surrounded by the three respondents and was taken to their house. Respondents Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Shafi struck on the head of the deceased with a vehola and a dang respectively, and the deceased fell down unconscious. Earlier an alarm having been raised by tie deceased, the prosecution witnesses, Muhammad Siddiq, Aziz, Din Muhammad, Sharif and one Gaman were attracted to the scene of occurrence. Respondent Muhammad Siddiq struck P. W. 13 Muhammad Siddiq with a blunt weapon, and respondent Khushia struck P. W. Muhammad Sharif with a dang. Sher Muhammad deceased was in a precarious condition, and as he died on his way to the hospital he was brought back to the village. The first information report was lodged at the police station at 5 p. m. The same day by P. W. Muhammad Sharif.
3. The respondents denied the charges framed against them, and asserted that they were first attacked and injured by the complainant party for aveng--ing the beating given to P. W. Farzand.
4. The respondents claimed that they injured the complainant party in self-defence. They said they W beaten P. W. Farzand for the latter had destroyed the crop of the former.
5. The medical evidence disclosed that the deceased had a contused wound 1 x -- x bone deep on the front part of head, and a contusion 2' x 1" on the top of head. Both the injuries ware found to have been caused by a blunt weapon. P. W. Muhammad Siddiq had a blunt weapon simple wound on the right front of his forehead. P. W. Muhammad Sharif had a contusion caused by a blunt weapon on the back of his right shoulder. Tile injury was simple.
6. Respondent Muhammad Shafi had no less than six injuries including an incised wound 4' x 3' x bone deep on the left forearm with complete fracture of the radius bone which was visible and palpable.
7. He had also a lacerated wound 3' x -- ' x muscle deep on the left side of the top of the head, and another contusion mark 2' x --on the back of the head. The incised wound was grievous and caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The rest of the injuries were simple caused by a blunt weapon.
8. Respondent Muhammad Siddiq had a contusion -- " x -- ' on the head besides three abrasion marks on the left forearm and back of left shoulder. All these injuries were simple and caused by a blunt weapon. Respondent Khushia had four injuries including three contused wounds. All the injuries were simple caused by a blunt weapon.
9. The learned Single Judge of the High Court found that there was no evidence to prove the first motive, namely.-trouble over the sale of the land. As regards the second motive, the learned Judge observed that the respon--dents had admitted that they had beaten P. W. Farzand because he had damaged their crop. This plea was accepted by both the trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge of the High, Court. That being so, it was likely that the deceased and his men felt aggrieved, and they committed aggression against the respondents. It was further observed that the prosecution having failed to prove the first motive regarding trouble over the sale of land the question of beating P. W. Farzand in connection with that land did not arise, and therefore the defence plea that P. W. Farzand had been beaten because the former had damaged their land was likely to be true.
10. It appears that the blood-stained earth was recovered from outside the house of the accused- respondents. Blood marks were also found on the wall of their house. No mark of struggle in the lane from the door of the house of the deceased up to the door of the house of the respondents was found. The absence of any such mark shows that the prosecution story that the deceased had been taken from his house to the house of the respondents and injured there was not true. On the contrary the recovery of blood from near the house of the respondents supported the defence plea that it was the complainant party that had come there, and attacked the respondents.
11. Although respondent Muhammad Siddiq had been injured in the occurrence no mention of any attack on him was mentioned in the first in--formation report. To this extent therefore the prosecution was guilty of suppression of a material fact.
12. An analysis of the injuries suffered by the two parties discloses, that as against four injuries suffered by the complainant party there were fourteen injuries on the person of the three respondents including a grievous wound caused by a sharp-edged weapon. This disclosed that at least one member of the complainant party was armed with a sharp-edged weapon. Although the prosecution alleged that the deceased had been injured on his head with a vehola no such injury was found during the medical examination. This falsified the story of attack on the deceased with a vehola by respondent Muhammad Siddiq.
13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned above it cannot be said that the impugned order of acquittal is perverse or such as no reasonable body of men could have arrived at. The final appraisal of the evidence normally rests with the High Court, and unless there has been any serious contravention of the judicial principles governing such appraisal, this Court seldom interferes with the findings of fact. We do not think that the order of acquittal needs our interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed.