' The present criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment of acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 to 21, dated 24-9-1981, passed by the Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad.
2. Respondents Nos. 1 to 21 were accused of the offences under section 307/325/382/397/411/148/149, P. P. C., vide F. I. R. No, 96, dated 20-3-1979 registered at Police Station Gulberg, District Faisalabad. However, they were charged under section 148/382/307 read with section 149, P.P.C.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the religious committee of the District Housing Committee, Faisalabad, decided to allot Plot No, 708-D of Ghulam Muhammad Abad Colony to the Jamiat Ahl- e-Hadith through its Amir Dr. Ghulam Qadir for the construction of mosque. On 25-3-1979 when the Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith started construction of the mosque on the said plot, Khalid Pervez son of Raja Ali Bahadur resident of Chak No, 279-Kalan came there and asked Ghulam Qadir that the plot under construction belongs to him. Both the parties went to the office of A.D.C.(G), Faisalabad, in order to establish their claim and later on it was decided that the said plot is not owned by Raj Khalid Pervez and it is a Government property, which has been allotted to Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith for the construction of mosque. On 27-3-1979, the Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith again started the construction on the said plot and the construction work was continued till mid-night. After the completion of construction, Ghulam Qadir, Nasrullah, Molvi Mukhtar, Muhammad Ishaq, Muhammad Yaqoob, Ch. Rchmat Ali and Muhammad Hanif slept within the premises of under-construction mosque to guard the construction material which was lying there. At about 2-00 a.m. Javed Ali alias Jadi, Abdul Jabbar, Muhammad Taki and his brother, Muhammad Usman, Abdul Haq, Muhammad Aslam, Abdul Hameed, Abdul Shakoor and Muhammad Iqbal while armed with Dandas turned up there and raised Lalkara that Ghulam Qadir will not be allowed to be alive and on the instigation of Mufti Nawab Din and Qari Abdul Rashid and Molvi Ghulam Rasool, the abovementioned accused made a murderous assault upon Ghulam Qadir, Muhammad Ishaque, Muhammad Nasrullah, Muhammad Yaqoob and Molvi Mukhtar and caused injuries on their persons, with their respective weapons. After the occurrence injured Ghulam Qadir, Muhammad Ishaque, Muhammad Yaqoob, Muhammad Nasrullah and Molvi Mukhtar Ahmad were removed to the Civil Hospital, Faisalabad, where Dr. Major Muhammad Yousaf medically examined them.
4. Major Dr. Muhammad Yousaf, first of all, medically examined Dr. Ghulam Qadir at 3-00 a.m. on 28-3-1979 and found 14 injuries on his person. Injury No,9 was contused swelling on the back side of forearm and was declared grievous; whereas the remaining injuries were simple in nature having been caused with blunt weapon. Exh. P.B. is the correct carbon copy of his medico-legal report.
' On the same day at 3-15 a.m. he also medically examined Muhammad Ishaque and found two injuries on his person, simple in nature, having been caused with blunt weapon, and the duration was fresh. Exh. P.C. is the correct carbon copy of the medico-legal report.
' On the same day he also medically examined Muhammad Nasrullah and found 8 injuries on his person, all simple in nature and having been caused with blunt weapon. Exh. P.D. is the exact carbon copy of his medico-legal report.
' On the same day at 3-35 a.m. he also medically examined Muhammad Yaqoob and found five injuries on his person, simple in nature, having been caused with blunt weapon. Exh. P.E. is the exact carbon copy of his medico-legal report.
' On the same day at 4-15 a.m. he also medically examined Mukhtar Ahmad and found two contused marks, simple in nature, having been caused with blunt weapon. Exh. P.F is the exact carbon copy of his medico-legal report.
5. Abdul Rehman P.W.9, after receiving the medico-legal reports, reported the matter to the police vide his written application Exh. PA./A. Amin All Shah, S.I. took up the in vestigation, drafted the complaint and sent the same to the Police Station Gulberg for the formal registration of the case.
He visited the spot, prepared the site plan Exh. P.W.10/A, recorded the statements of the P.Ws., arrested the accused/respondents and on 4-7-1979 recovered the guarder from Lal Din accused and took the same into possession vide memo. Exh.P.W.10/B, and after completing the investigation challaned the accused.
6. Accused/respondents were charged under section 148/382/307 read with section 149, P.P.C. They did not plead guilty and claimed that a false case had been planted against them due to enmity and religious rivalry; and produced Nasar Ahmad D.W.1, Muhammad Rafique D.W.2 and Muhammad Younas D.W.3 in their defence. They also produced the certified copy of the statement of Abdul Shakoor Exh.DA. and a certified copy of F.I.R. No,294/77 Exh. D.B. registered at Police Station Gulberg.
7. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined ten P.Ws. in all, i.e. P.W.1 Dr. Major Yousaf Ali, P.W.2 Molvi Mukhtar Ahmad, P.W.3 Ghulam Qadir, P.W.4 Muhammad Nasrullah, P.W.5 Dr. Abdul Hamid Sabir, P.W.6 Muhammad Rafique, P.W.7 Muhammad Yaqoob, P.W.8 Muzaffar Ali, A.S.I. P.W.9 Abdur Rashid complainant and P.W.10 Amin All Shah, S.I./Investigating Officer. Niaz Ahmad and Muhammad Siddique P.Ws. were given up as having been won over, whereas Ch. Rehmat Ali, Noor Alani and Muhammad Hanif P.Ws. were given up as being unnecessary.
8. As stated above, the learned trial Court had acquitted respondents Nos.1 to 21, vide impugned judgment, dated 24-9-1981, hence the instant criminal revision petition.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for setting aside the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 to 21, as he was forced to concede that there was no evidence on the record to establish as to who had specifically inflicted injuries. In this respect, further conceded, that P.W.4 Muhammad Nasrullah had conceded that he could not tell as to who caused him injuries.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submitted that, under instructions, he stands by the impugned judgment and does not support the present criminal revision petition for setting aside the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 to 21. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the case of the prosecution had suffered from serious doubts, and that the impugned judgment was based on very cogent reasons stated for the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 to 21. In this respect, pointed out, that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 2-00 a.m. but there is no mention of any source of light, by which the accused had been identified. Further pointed out, whereas in the F.I.R. only 10 persons had been named as accused, while complainant P.W.9 had alleged that there were 20 to 25 persons, who had participated in the occurrence as accused. Similarly, pointed out, that it stands established that the F.I.R. in question had been lodged after considerable delay, and that under the circumstances the possibility of the same having been lodged after due deliberation cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, submitted that as the P.Ws. were highly interested and inimical due to sect rivalry; and that as the testimony of the P.Ws. suffered from dishonest improvements, therefore, it was against the principle of safe administration of criminal justice to place reliance upon such testimony without independent corroboration. Further submitted that the P.W. 2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 did not corroborate each other, and that the benefit of the same has rightly been awarded to the accused/respondents.
Further submitted that the impugned judgment was neither perverse nor arbitrary nor was it in violation of any principle of law pertaining to the appreciation of evidence on the record.
11. The Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, and it is the considered view that the submissions made on behalf of the respondents/accused are duly borne out from the record; and that under such circumstances, the impugned judgment is unexceptionable and accordingly no interference is called for with the said judgment. The Court is fortified in this view by further observing that as held in Ghulam Sikandar's case PLD 1985 SC 11, no interference with an order of acquittal will take place even if a different reasonable conclusion is possible on the basis of the evidence on the record and that the finding of acquittal can only be interfered with if it is found wholly artificial, shocking and ridiculous, or it is such a conclusion which no reasonable person would conceivably arrive at.
12. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above, the present revision petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. The respondents Nos.1 to 21 are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.