' RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is a petition by Muhammad Fazil petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Division. Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 14-5-1990 accepting the appeal of Asghar Ali respondent and setting aside his conviction and sentence recorded under sections 302 and 201, P.P.C. And rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the acquittal of Muhammad Akram acquitted accused.
2. This is a case relating to circumstantial evidence.
3. On 19-6-1984, the dead body of an unidentified person was discovered in the area of Chak No,109/RB within the jurisdiction of Police Station Khurarianwala, District Faisalabad. Since the deceased appeared to have homicidal injuries, statement Exh.P.D. Of Abad Ali, P.W.4 was recorded at 6-30 p.m. On 19-6-1984 at Adda Lathianwala by Amir Ahmad Inspector P.W.19, which statement formed the basis of F.I.R. Exh. P.D./1 recorded under section 302, P.P.C. By Fatal Ahmad M.H.C. P.W.5 at 6-50 p.m. On 19-6-1984. Shirt Exh.P.1, Shalwar Exh.P.2 and Chappal Exh.P.4/1-2 next to the dead body were also taken into possession. The photographs Exhs.P.1 and P1/1 of the deceased were got taken.
4. The post-mortem examination of the dead body was carried out by Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad Piracha P.W.3 on 20-6-1984, who found two sharp-edged and one fire-arm injury on the deceased of which two were found to be fatal.
5. Another F.I.R. Exh.P.J. Was recorded under section 364, P.P.C. At 5-00' p.m. On 10-8-1984, on the report of Muhammad Fazil P.W.15 by Sultan Sikandar S.I. P.W.17 at Police Station Sargodha Cantt. In which the complainant indicated his suspicion that his son Mubashir Ahmad, who had been missing since 14-6-1984, had either been abducted by Muhammad Asghar accused of the present case or he had arranged his disappearance.
6. The police during investigation found the following evidence against Asghar Ali and Akram respondents:---
(a) Nasir Hayat, P.W.16 had last seen Asghar All respondent with Mubashir Ahmad deceased on 14- 6-1984.
(b) The statements of Tariq Iqbal, P.W.10, Sikandar P.W.11 and Muhammad Fazil P.W.15 which showed that on 14-6-1984 Asghar All respondent admitted before them that he had murdered the deceased on 14-6-1984.
(c) The statements of Tasadduq Hayat P.W.8 and Muhammad P.W.9 which showed that Asghar Ali respondent had made an extra-judicial confession on 28-9-1984 before them admitting to have murdered Mubashir Ahmad deceased and to have buried his dead body with the assistance of his cousin Akram respondent and of having pointed out on 29-9-1984 the place where he had buried the dead body.
(d) The statements of Arif Lambardar, Nazir Ahmad and Abid Ali, P.W.4 about the discovery of the dead body of Mabashir Ahmad deceased in Killa 2 of square 87 on 19-6-1984 and the recovery of shirt Exh.P.1 Shalwar Exh.P.2 and Chappal Exh.P.4/1-2 on the body and the taking of photographs Exhs.P.L. And P.L./1 of the deceased at the instance of the police.
(e) The statements of Abdur Razzaq P.W.13 and Ghulam Haider S.I. P.W.20 proving the recovery of carbine Exh.P.5, the purse Exh.P.6 containing the identity card Exh.P.7 at the instance of Asghar Ali respondent on 20-10-1984 and the recovery of Kassi Ex1'.P,8 at the instance of Akram resondent on the same day.
(f) The statement of Muhammad Fazil P.W.15 identifying the shirt Exh.P.1, Shalwar Exh.P.2, Chappal Exh.P.4/1-2 and the photographs Exhs.P.1 and P.1/1 as that of the deceased.
7. Whereas the trial Judge acquitted Akram respondent, he convicted Asghar Ali respondent under sections 302 and 201, P.P.C. However, a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court acquitted Asghar Ali respondent. In arriving at the said finding the learned Judges held that the evidence as regards extra-judicial confession could not be believed as the said testimony stood contradicted by the medical evidence, as the deceased also received a cut wound on the neck, which injury was not referred to by Asghar All respondent and that the testimony of the said witness also did not inspire confidence, as they did not take the said respondent into custody to produce him before the police nor mentioned the said fact to any one. The fact that Gul Muhammad, P.W.9 was an utter stranger to Asghar All respondent and it seemed improbable that the respondent, who was a policeman, would disclose his secret to an utter stranger, also created doubt to this testimony. As regards the deceased having been last seen in company with Asghar All respondent by Nasir Hayat, P.W.16 this witness was not corroborated by any other independent testimony and his testimony being in conflict with that of Muhammad Fazil complainant, did not inspire credence. As regards the admission made by Asghar All respondent of having met the deceased on 14-6-1984, as deposed to by Tariq Iqbal, P.W.10, Sikandar P.W.11 and Muhammad Fazil P.W.15, the said testimony was of no value as the witensses did not clearly state that the respondent had met the deceased after he was free from the Bank. As regards the recovery evidence, the same was disbelieved as the witnesses were not responsible persons of the said area from where the recoveries were effected and from other evidence it appeared that the respondent could not have been with the police on personal' remand on 20-10-1984, when the recoveries were made. The other evidence being of no value was brushed aside.
8. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that all the items of evidence, as produced by the prosecution, have been disbelieved by the learend Judges of the High Court on erroneous considerations and that if the same is appraised again, it would clearly show that the respondents alone committed the crime and none else and that they are guilty of the offences for which they were charged.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents and the State and have also perused the record. The reasons given by the learned Judges in coming to the above findings are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on the record and the principles laid down by this Court in respect of such cases dealing with circumstantial evidence. In normal circumstances this Court, even in cases involving ocular account, is reluctant to interfere by reapparaising evidence, unless all the grounds on which the High Court has purported to acquit the accused are not supportable at all from the evidence on the record. This case being founded on principles more delicate than those covering witnessed crime, we would be loath to interfere unless a grave misreading or misappreciation of evidence was palpably apparent, which is not so in the instant case. If any authority is required for this view, Lalu v. The State PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 258 and Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan PLD 1985 SC 11 may be referred.
10. Having examined with care the findings of the learned Judges on the evidence, which exercise appears to have been based on correct principles, we do not consider this to be a fit case in which leave should be granted.
11. For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition, leave is refused and the .