1. This revision application is filed on behalf of applicant Gul Hassan son of Kadir Bux who is aggrieved by the judgment dated 19-10-1987 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, whereby the respondents Kadir Bux son of Rasool Bux, Ali Gul son of Muhammad Moosa and Mould Bux son of Hussain Bux were acquitted of the charges under section 302/34, P.P.C. For the murder of Ali Hassan Brohi. The applicant has challenged the acquittal of the above respondents through this application.
2. The prosecution case is that tin 11-12-1985 the complainant Faqir Muhammad alongwith Ali Hassan, Muhammad Ayoob and Gul Hassan went to village Madeji with some work. After attending their work they all came back to the bus stand Madeji and were waiting for the bus in front of the hotel of Piaro Kharos when at 2-30 p.m. Accused Kadir Bux, Ali Gul and Mould Bud emerged from Madeji Bazar duly armed with guns. Accused Moula Bux abused the complainant and told him to run away as they will kill their enemy Ali Hassan. Thereafter Qadir Bux shot at chest of Ali Hassan, Mould Bux shot at Ali Hassan on right arm and right lumber region and Ali Gul shot at left arm and left side of Ali Hassan as a result of which Ali Hassan fell down while the accused ran away firing in the air. The complainant and the witnesses due to fear had hid themselves inside a hotel. When they came out they saw that Ali Hassan was bleeding. A cot was arranged, Ali Hassan was removed to Madeji Hospital where on arrival Ali Hassan expired. The complainant then proceeded to Police Post Madeji where he lodged the report. The motive was stated to be an old land dispute between accused and Ali Hassan.
3. A.S.I. Rajab Ali, Incharge of P.P. Madeji recorded the report and took up the investigation of the case.
4. He visited the hospital and inspected the dead body, held inquest, secured clothes of deceased, handed over the body for post-mortem examination, recorded statements of P.Ws. Gul Hassan and Muhammad Ayub. He also arrested accused Kadir Bux and Ali Gul, also recovered guns and cartridges from their possession he inspected the place of Wardat and recovered 3 empties from Wardat. On 16-12-1985 he arrested accused Mould Bux and after completing the investigation, he handed over the papers to S.H.O. Who submitted the challan.
5. Accused pleaded not guilty' and claimed to be trial. At the trial prosecution examined 9 witnesses P.W.1 Faquir Muhd, P.W.2 Gul Hassan, P.W.3 Muhd Ayoob, are the three eye-witnesses. P.W.4 is Medical Officer, P.WS Muhammad Juman, P.W.6 Karim Bux Tapedar, P.W.7 Lashkar Khan Mashir, P.W,8, A.S.I. Rajah Ali, I.O. And P.W.9 Muhammad Bux.
6. The accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. They have denied the allegations and claimed false implication due to enmity. None of them examined any defence witness and except Qadir Bux, the other accused did not give statement on oath.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, so also the counsel for the respondents and the counsel for the State. , Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that, there were 3 eye-witnesses in this case who have fully implicated the accused and their evidence was fully supported by the 'medical evidence. There was circumstantial evidence in the shape of recoveries. The evidence as to motive was also there right from the stage of F.I.R. All the material pieces of evidence have been discarded by the trial Court by misreading the evidence and also disbelieved the eye-witnesses due to relationship.
8. Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Awan, learned Advocate for the respondents has argued that the trial Court has properly evaluated the evidence and given cogent reasons for not placing reliance on ocular testimony. Medical evidence belies ocular version the motive is also false.
9. The learned counsel .For the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court. He states that; there is no independent evidence in this case. The place of Wardat was a thickly populated area, nobody has been examined as a witness in this case. The case appears to be doubtful and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons and no interference is called for in this case.
10. Before I proceed any further, it may be noted that on behalf of the State no acquittal appeal is filed.
11. The present revision application has been filed by a private party challenging the acquittal of the accused. In such type of revision applications, the field and scope is %*cry narrow. The Honourable Supreme Court has very recently laid down that unless it can be shown that the judgment of the lower Court is perverse, that it is completely illegal, that no other conclusion can be drawn except the guilt of the accused or there has been misreading of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice. This authority is reported in 1992 SCMR 96.
12. I shall now proceed to examine this matter in the light of the above authority of the Honourable Supreme Court.
13. The incident has taken place at a bus stand of Madeji Town. It has come in the cross-examination of P.W.6 Karim Bux, Tapedar, that the Wardat has taken place at the bus stand of Madeji Town. The place of Wardat is a busy spot where Suzuki stand, Tonga stand, hotel, mechanic shops and Octroi post is situated. It is also stated by this witness that hotel of one Piaro Kharos is 15 feet from the Wardat.
14. From the evidence of P.W.6 .Karim Bux one gets a :tear picture that the place of Wardat is a very busy place and all round there are hotels, shops, bus stand, Tanga stand, Suzuki stand and an Octroi post. This will go to show that it was a thickly inhabited area, and people from all walks of life are bound to be available at that place. Yet it is surprising to note that not a single witness from that place is either cited or examined as a witness in this case. It is virtually impossible to believe that no body from that area had seen the commission of this crime. In these circumstances it becomes extremely suspicious, that the entire prosecution case was resting on the ocular evidence of 3 witnesses who are closely related to each other, and the deceased. In this regard the Investigating Officer was also asked if he examined any body from that area either on the day of Wardat, the following day or the day thereafter, he replied in the negative.
15. The 3 eye-witnesses in this case are P.W.1 Faquir Muhd who is the complainant, P.W.2 Gul Hassan and P.W.3 Muhammad Ayoob. The complainant had stated in the F.I.R., that he and the other witnesses had hidden themselves in a hotel and it is only after the departure of accused that they came out. Similarly, P.W.2 Gul Hassan had also made the same statement before the police. This will go to show, that since the witnesses were in hiding, they could not have see the actual part played by each of the accused persons. Yet in their deposition in Court these witnesses are giving the complete details of the role performed by each of the accused. This obviously was not possible, therefore, to make it possible, the witnesses improved upon their previous statements and have deposed in the Court that the Vardat has taken place right before their eyes by giving the details from the first giro shot to the last and also by which of the accused. This obviously indicates a deliberate attempt on the part of the witnesses to implicate the accused.
16. The again, there is enmity between the parties. In this regard the complainant has mentioned in the F.I.R. As well as in his deposition that there was a dispute over land between the parties. The accused Qadir Bux in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. Has also stated that his Sahiba Khatoon was married to his cousin Suleman, said Suleman killed Mst. Sahiba Khatoon declaring her Kari with deceased Ali Hassan. This will show that the deceased was a condemned man having been declared a Karo. Accused Qadir Bux has also produced certified copy of F.I.R. No.103/85 regarding the murder of Mst. Sahiba Khatoon which contains the name of deceased Ali Hassan as Karo. These circumstances clearly indicate that enmity between the parties was there, as such the eye-witnesses being related to the deceased, their evidence was required to be corroborated from some unimpeachable source. This is exactly what has been observed by the trial Court also.
17. Furthermore, there is no independent corroboratory circumstance in this case and this is also the view of the trial Court. The recoveries are of no consequences as the same were not sent for expert examination. Moreover, the 2 guns arc also licensed. The medical evidence also cannot be used for corroboration, as the Medical Officer has admitted that injuries could be the result of 2 shots, while according to witnesses 3 shots were Fired and all the 3 shots hit the deceased.
18. All the above circumstances clearly go to show that the trial Court has properly evaluated the evidence and has given cogent reasons for acquitting the accused. As a result of my above discussion, there is nothing in the judgment of the trial Court to suggest that it is perverse or illegal.
19. It is not a case in which the only conclusion drawn is the guilt of the accused in fact an alternate conclusion of the case being doubtful is more plausible from the evidence and circumstances of the case.
20. The learned counsel for the applicant has tried to argue and show drat the view taken by the trial Court is not the only view as another is also possible. This argument is misconceived for, it is now a settled principle of law, that merely because an alternate view is possible from the evidence on record is no ground for interference by the superior Courts. In this regard I may refer to PLD 1964 Kar. 356.
21. In the result, I am of the considered view, that the accused have been rightly acquitted by the trial Court. Neither could I find anything in the judgment of the lower Court to shown that it was perverse or illegal, nor was it shown to be a case of misreading of evidence.
22. Accordingly, I am of the view that there is no merit in this revision application, which is hereby dismissed.
23. N.H.Q./G-302/K