1. ' This revision application is filed on behalf of Allah Bux Laghari against the acquittal of accused Abdur Razzak respondent No,2. He was acquitted by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (South), Karachi, by judgment, dated 4-4-1991.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Syed Saeed Masan Zaidi, the learned Advocate for the applicant who has submitted that in this case there are two eye-witnesses namely P.W. Nasrullah and P.W. Jawed.
3. According to the learned counsel both the eye-witnesses had supported the prosecution case but the trial Court acquitted the accused by misreading the evidence.
4. ' I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court and I have also perused the evidence of P.Ws.
5. Jawed and Nasrullah. According to the learned counsel P.Ws. Jawed and Nasrullah had initially informed the complainant about the identity of the assailment. When these witnesses were examined in Court, they have not confirmed this aspect of the matter. On the contrary P.W. Jawed had only expressed his suspicion but he has dearly stated in the cross-examination that he had seen two persons fighting but he could not see the assailment. The other witness P.W. Nasrullah did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. It will, therefore, appear that there was no evidence against the respondent No,2.
6. There is nothing in the judgment of the trial Court from which it could be inferred that the judgment was perverse, or that it was based on misreading of evidence. The learned trial Judge has taken into consideration all the aspects of the case, he has weighed and sifted the evidence as required under the law and in doing so the learned trial Judge has given cogent reasons for the same.
7. ' It was also contended by the learned counsel that blood-stained knife and clothes were recovered from the accused and the same could be used for conviction. It is now a settled law that the evidence of recovery of knife, clothes etc., is only corroboratory in nature and by itself it is not enough to convict the accused as there was no direct evidence. In other words there was nothing to be corroborated by the recovery evidence.
8. ' In view of the above I do not find any substance in this matter, as such, no interference is called for. Consequently I am of the view that the judgment passed by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and this revision application having no merits is accordingly dismissed in limine.