' This criminal appeal against acquittal arises from the judgment of learned Magistrate Section-30, Sialkot, whereby he, on 27-3-1970, acquitted Javaid Arshad, respondent, of the charge under section 307 of the P.P.C.
2. The charge against him was that he launched murderous assault on Anjum Shakeel P.W. 1 on 21- 8-1969 near the shop of Muhammad Aslam alias Achhi within the limits of Police Station City Sialkot.
3. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution produced nine witnesses. Anjum Shakeel P.W.1, while supporting the prosecution version given in the F.I.R., stated that at the fateful time, Javaid Arshad respondent/accused had caused knife injury on his right flank after a quarrel between them on the payment of Rs,2 which he had borrowed from the respondent/accused. Muhammad Arshad P.W.4, Abdul Hamid Nasim P.W.5 and Nawab Din alias Babu P.W.6 are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They claimed to have seen the respondent inflicting knife blow on the person of Anjum Shakeel P.W.1. Dr. Karam Hussain Sheikh P.W. 9 examined Anjum Shakeel P.W.1 and found one injury caused by sharp-edged weapon, which was declared dangerous and grievous. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
5. When examined under section 342 of the Cr.P.C., the respondent denied all the incriminating circumstances. He produced four witnesses in defence.
6. The learned trial Court disbelieved the eye-witnesses and acquitted the respondent of the charge.
7. The learned State counsel submitted that the statements of Anjum Shakeel, injured witness, and the statement of the doctor were not considered by the trial Court; that the remaining three witnesses have wrongly been disbelieved by the trial Court; that the occurrence took place in a Mohalla and was seen by a number of persons; that Abdul Hamid Naseem, Muhammad Arshad and Nawab Din eye-witnesses have supported the injured witness that the eye-witnesses have been disbelieved without cogent reasons; that the prosecution evidence has been misread and misinterpreted; and that since the accused were previously known by then to the witnesses, therefore, there was no difficulty in identifying them at the time of occurrence. This appeal was admitted to regular hearing on 10-12-1970. Notice was issued to the respondent. Thereafter, bailiable warrants for his arrest were issued and non-bailable warrants for his appearance were also issued. The serving agency has reported that Javed Arshad, respondent, was not available in Pakistan and at present is employed in Shipping Corporation in Greece. Since the case is old one and there is no immediate possibility of the appearance of the respondent, so I have decided to examine the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with him. I find that the trial Court has consciously applied its mind to the relevant evidence. It has discussed the statements of all the important witnesses. In para. No,4 of the judgment, it has given reasons for disbelieving the presence of the eye-witnesses other than the injured person, on the spot. The reasons given by it find support from the evidence on the record. It has appreciated the evidence in accordance with the guiding principles laid down by the superior Courts for the appreciation of the evidence in such like cases. It had the privilege of observing demeanour of the witnesses. The learned trial Court was of the view that the eye- witnesses including Anjum Shakeel, P.W. Were not reliable; that the presence of the eye-witnesses other than Anjum PW1 was highly doubtful; that the important witness i.e, tonga driver was not examined; and that weapon of offence was not recovered. The submissions made by the learned counsel do not make out a case for interference in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. It is well settled that when an accused person is acquitted of charge by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then strong and exceptional grounds would be required for interference with the judgment of acquittal, which I do not see in the case in hand.
9. For what has been stated above, there being no merit the appeal is dismissed.