' This Criminal Revision arises from the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge Khanewal, whereby he on 7-6-1990, acquitted Muhammad Ramzan respondent of the charge under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of his father Saleh Muhammad.
2. The occurrence took place on the night between 16/17-1-1989 in the Baithak of Allah Bakhsh, complainant situate in Chak No,4515 of Police Station Sadar Mian Channu. The F.I.R. Ex. PH was lodged by Allah Bakhsh, brother of the deceased on the same night at 1-00 a.m. And was recorded by Aziz-urRehman, S.H.O, P.W.12.
3. The motive allegedly was that the deceased had divorced the mother of the accused/respondent on 8-11-1987. The occurrence was allegedly seen by Allah Bakhsh P.W.10 and Muhammad Ashraf P.W.11. No crime empty was removed from the place of occurrence. The respondent was arrested on 24-1-1989. On '27-1-1989, he got recovered pistol Ex.P 19 containing empty Ex.P 20. Forensic Science Laboratory Report shows that the crime empty was fired from pistol Ex.P 19. The respondent denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove its case, prosecution produced 12 witnesses. Allah Bakhsh P.W.10 and Muhammad Ashraf P.W.11 gave the ocular account of the occurrence. They claim to have seen the respondents firing shot with pistol on the deceased hitting him and resulting in his death. Elahi Bakhsh P.W.9 and Aziz-urRehman P.W.12 have deposed about the recovery of pistol and crime empty from the accused/respondent. Dr. Muhammad Imran Farooq conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Saleh Muhammad deceased and found following injury on his person:- "An oval-shaped fire arm wound measuring 2-1/4" in width in the certre and 4-1/2" in length starting from right side of forehead 1 1/2" above the middle of right eye-brow, to the head with 4-1/2" length anterior posteriorily.
' The wound is brain deep and a small quantity of brain was found outside the wound. Skull was found fractured with a hole rounded in shape with irregular margin having diameter of 1-3/4" corresponding to the injuries were found on scalp.
' A fracture line was found in the skull from the above-said injury to the right ear.
(ii) The length of this fracture line is 5".
' In his opinion, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of fire-arm injury on the person of the deceased. The death was immediate and the time between death and post-mortem was about 10 hours. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.
5. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the respondent denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication. He did not give evidence on Oath in disproof of the charge against him. He did not produce any witness in defence.
6. While disbelieving the presence of the eye-witnesses and the incriminating recovery, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent as stated above.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the respondent, inasmuch as, the F.I.R. Was lodged after 3 hours of the occurrence; the name of the accused/respondent is mentioned therein; the eye-witnesses being resident of the Baithak in which the murder took place are natural witnesses; the respondent had a strong motive to kill the deceased and the reasons given by the trial Court for disbelieving the prosecution evidence more particularly, the ocular account given by the two eyewitnesses are flimsy.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I feel that the most important and crucial point in the case was as to whether or not the alleged eye-witnesses had, seen the occurrence and were in a position to identify the culprit. After applying its conscious mind to the statements made by the eyewitnesses, the trial Court was of the view that they had not seen the occurrence, the reasons given by trial Court are quite sound and convincing. I do not see any valid reason to disagree with it. Once it is held that the eye-witnesses were not present on the spot at the time of occurrence then the matter ends because no empty having been recovered from the spot, the recovery of pistol Ex.P 19 containing cartridge Ex.P 20 was/is of no legal consequence. It is well settled that once an accused person is acquitted of the charge, the presumption of his innocence becomes double.
So strong and exceptional grounds would be required for interference, which I do not see in the case in hand.
' Pursuant to the above discussion, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed in limine.