SAJJAD AHMED SIPRA, J.--The present Criminal Revision Petition contends for setting aside of the acquittal of respondents Liaquat, Ghulam Hussain and Karim Bakhsh, of the charges under Sections 302, 307 and 324/34, P.P.C, and against the conviction of respondent Muhammad Hussain under the lessor charge i.e. Section 304 P.P.C, vide the impugned judgment dated 18.4.1984, passed by Sb. Saeed Ahmed, Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura.
2. The brief facts leading to the present criminal revision petition are that a case was registered against the respondents herein vide FIR (Ex.PB) No. 172/82, dated 29.5.1982 under Section 302/307/324/34, P.P.C, at Police Station Muridke, District Sheikhupura, for having committed the murder of Muhammad Qasim deceased and for having caused injuries to Muhammad Sharif (PW.2) and Muhammad Yousaf (PWA). The accused/respondents were challaned and sent up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Trial Court had convicted the respondent, Muhammad Hussain under Section 304, P.P.C, and sentenced him to 7 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.
5,000, or in default thereof to one year R.I., further directing that, if realized, Rs. 35,000/- shall be paid as compensation, of the fine amount to the legal heirs of the deceased. The said respondent was also allowed the benefit of .The provisions of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., but the learned trial Court had acquitted the remaining accused i.e. Respondents, Liaquat, Ghulam Hussain and Karim Bakhsh, vide the same judgment dated 18.4.1984.
2. The impugned judgment is to the effect that the occurrence was result of grave and sudden provocation, and that the only injury caused to the deceased was by the respondent/convict, Muhammad Hussain, under the aforesaid circumstances, and, as such, he was guilty of culpable of homicide not amounting to murder, whereas it was held thereby that the case against the rest of the three respondents was not proved. In this respect, the ocular evidence provided by PW.2 Muhammad Sharif and PWA Muhammad Yousaf was not believed nor the recoveries were effected, and it was further submitted that the prosecution had tried to suppress the injuries caused to the three accused i.e. Convict/respondent, Muhammad Hussain, respondent Liaquat and respondent Ghulam Hussain, and, as such, the case of the prosecution was not free from doubt in respect of the said acquitted respondents. The State declined to file an appeal against the acquitted respondents or against the conviction and sentence awarded to the respondent, Muhammad Hussain. Hence, the present criminal revision petition. The respondent convict, Muhammad Hussain has also not filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents and the State have been heard at length.
The learned counsel for the State does not support the present criminial revision petition and stands by the impugned judgment, whereas the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the said judgment is unexceptionable and does not call for any interference with it, as it is based on cogent reasons stated therein and eminently justifiable logical conclusion derived from the evidence on the record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the facts and circumstances of the case as established by the prosecution does not call for the acquittal of the respondents from the charge under Sections 302 and 307/324/34 P.P.C. Further submitted that the occurrence stands admitted, and that the learned Trial Court had erroneously disbelieved the injured PWs. Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Yousaf, and that the recoveries were effected from all the respondents, and that the same were blood-stained, according to the report of the Serologist; thus corroborating the medical and ocular evidence. Further submitted that the motive stood proved. Therefore, contended for the conviction of the respondents under the offences charged.
5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to support the contention with reference to the evidence on the record. The learned trial Court has comprehensively dealt with the ocular evidence and, thereafter, concluded that the testimony of the eye-witnesses was not trustworthy.
In this respect, notice has been taken of the fact that the said P.Ws, were duly confronted time and again, and thus discredited in respect of the appearance and presence at the spot, the role that they had attributed to themselves and in respects of the manner and mode of the injuries suffered by them. Furthermore, the PW.2, Muhammad Sharif had not accused any of the respondents except the convict/respondent, Muhammad Hussain of having caused injuries to any one, whereas Muhammad Yousaf (PW.4) was considered unreliable in respect of the manner in which he had sustained simple and superficial injuries. In addition to that, the complainant had not specifically accused any one else except convict/respondent, Muhammad Hussain of having caused injuries, in the F.I.R. The fact that the P.Ws, had suppressed the injuries suffered by the three respondents, namely, Muhammad Hussain, Liaquat and Ghulam Hussain as well as Mst. Sughra Bibi who was not accused herein, had created grave doubts about their version of the alleged occurrence. Further notice has been taken of the fact that the recoveries were effected from a joint residence, and that no independent witness had testified to the same, and that there was sufficient evidence on the record to establish that the grave and sudden provocation had been provided by the complainant party as a result of which the altercation in question had taken place resulting in the deceased Muhammad Qasim losing his life, as a result of a single blow of chhuri, specifically attributed to Muhammad Hussain, Convict/respondent. Therefore, no case is made out for interference under the revisional jurisdiction as the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or error of jurisdiction or non-reading or misreading of the evidence or in violation of any established principle of appraisement thereof. Further more, it is an accepted principle of law for the safe administration of criminal justice that an order of acquittal can only be interfered with if the conclusion arrived at is wholly artificial or ridiculous or such a judgment is wholly perverse; and that there shall be no interference therewith even if a different conclusion is possible on the basis of the evidence on the record, as laid down in Ghulam Sikandar and another vs. Mamraz Khan and Others (PLD 1985 SC 11).
6. Pursuant to the above discussion, the present criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
7. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents stand discharged accordingly.