Niamat Ali had reported against the respondents for having murdered his nephew Taj Din on 25-7- 1987 at 8-00 p.m. In a street near Gala Eshan Wala in Raiwind Town of District Kasur. The deceased was alleged to have been caused only a single injury by Amjad alias Labha respondent with a Chhuri. The said Chhuri, according to the prosecution, was recovered during investigation on the pointing out of Amjad. However, during investigation, the police came to the conclusion that actually Roshan Masih alias Riaz was the real murderer. He was arrested and challaned for having committed the murder alongwith respondents Nos.1 to 4. The S.H.O. Put both the versions before the Court so that the complainant does not start the campaign of grievance against him of having let off the accused named by him to have committed the murder of his nephew.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who had tried respondents Nos.1 to 4 as well as Roshan Masih, acquitted all of them vide judgment dated 7-10-1989.
2. The application submitted by the complainant to .The District Magistrate for filing appeal against the acquittal of the respondents was declined by the District Magistrate after obtaining the opinion from the legal advisor i.e. District Attorney. Not feeling satisfied the complainant has approached this Court for exercise of revisional powers.
3. The acquittal of the respondents was ordered by the learned trial Judge holding that all the eye- witnesses were related and so interested; that the evidence of recovery of Chhuri did not inspire confidence as the same had also been deposed to by a related witness and that the evidence as a whole against the respondents does not inspire enough confidence to hold them guilty for having committed the murder. Roshan Masih alias Riaz, respondent No.S was acquitted for lack of evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the observation of the learned trial Judge that the witnesses were related to the deceased, However, he has advanced the argument that mere relationship was no ground to discard the testimony of P.Ws. Similar was his answer to the observation of the trial Judge vis-a-vis the evidence of recovery of Chhuri.
5. Herein is not a case where the version put forth by the complainant was disbelieved by the Court.
Actually, the State had come to the Court with a version that a person other than respondents 1 to 4 had committed the murder while the complainant's grievance that the respondents Nos.1 to 4 had, committed the murder of his nephew was also before the Court. The Court was seized of the matter against two sets of the accused having committed the same murder. Such a position as a result of interaction makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. The prosecution evidence produced by the complainant was, therefore, to be read with a basic disadvantage which he inherited from the State Agency. Apart from the observation of the learned trial Judge the other important aspect is that the story of the complainant that one of the accused had taken away the deceased when he was sitting with them and they had followed him and had thereafter seen the accused committing his murder itself does not ring true. If the complainant had any doubt about the intention of the accused, he should not have allowed his nephew to go with him and if he had committed that mistake and had later thought that he should not have allowed his nephew to go in the company of the accused then instead of following him quietly rather mutely he should have called out his nephew or the accused and asked for the return of the deceased but the complainant and the other witness did not do any such thing. No evidence was led that there was any light where the occurrence had taken place. The observation of the trial Judge, in the circumstances, that the witnesses might not have been in a position to identify the real culprit coupled with the fact that the police had come to a different finding that some body else had committed the murder, also gains importance. Refusal of the State to file an appeal against acquittal also leaves a scar behind. After having gone through the record and the impugned judgment and after having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am convinced that no case for exercise of revisional powers has been made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine being without merit.