1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Mirza Noor Hussain, complainant, appellant herein, calls in question the judgment dated 24-11-1982 whereby the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dismissed his Criminal Revision No,1051/80 challenging the acquittal of the accused/respondents Farooq Zaman and Zulfiqar Ali alias Khaliq from the murder charge of his brother Gul Hassan deceased. The leave granting order is as follows:-- "Raja Muhammad Anwar, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of High Court submits that the Courts below have erred in treating the eye- witnesses as interested persons, ignoring the fact that none of them had any enmity whatsoever, against any of the accused persons. Learned counsel, however, pressed the case against Farooq Zaman respondent only, on the basis of ocular evidence as corroborated by circumstantial evidence of the injuries having been noticed on his person. In this behalf learned counsel submitted that the accused had absconded after the incident and this conduct was a further confirmatory evidence showing that he avoided arrest till the injuries received by him in the incident in this case were completely healed up. Learned counsel also referred to the medical evidence as to the age, location and nature of the injuries on the person of this accused in support of the plea that the injuries were caused by a brick-bat at the time of the incident in the case and the prosecution case as disclosed at the earliest stage in the F.I.R. Stands proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
2. After hearing the learned counsel in the light of the record before us, we feel that the question whether the acquittal of Farooq Zaman respondent is based on correct principle of law governing crimir justice deserves consideration. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal so far as Farooq Zaman respondent is concerned, and allow the petition to that extent only. The petition is, however, dismissed as against Zulfiqar All respondent."
3. ' The facts of the case in nutshell are that a case under section 307/34, P.P.0 had earlier been registered against Farooq Zaman respondent and one Muhammad Shafique alias Shiqu for injuring Abdul Ghani P.W. Which was pending trial and was being looked after by Gul Hassan deceased, he being the partner of Abdul Ghani complainant in that case. On the preceding day of the occurrence, Farooq Zaman and Zulfiqar All respondents alongwith Qamar Zaman and Muhammad Fazil, the acquitted accused, approached the complainant/appellant to persuade Abdul Ghani P.W. For a compromise who directed them to see him the next morning in his shop.
4. Accordingly, the appellant conveyed the message of compromise to the deceased and Abdul Ghani P.W. But they did not agree, whereupon Farooq Zaman accused/respondent threatened Gul Hassan deceased with dire consequences. On 2-11-1974 at about 6-15 p.m. Abdul Ghani P.W. And Gul Hassan deceased were present in their shop when all the four accused armed with revolvers came there and Qamar Zaman shouted to the deceased to come out and that he will not be spared. Farooq Zaman respondent fired at him hitting him on the left shoulder blade with which he fell down. Altaf Hussain P.W.10 picked up a brick-bat and pelted the same at Farooq Zaman hitting him on his head. Muhammad Fazil accused, since discharged, fired at Altaf Hussain P.W. But missed him. Abdul Ghani and Muhammad Ashraf P.Ws., entreated the accused party not to kill them upon which Zulfiqar All respondent 2 fired at Abdul Ghani while Qamar Zaman, the acquitted accused, fired at Muhammad Ashraf but they escaped unhurt. Muhammad Ramzan P.W. Also witnessed the occurrence. The occurrence was reported to Muhammad Hussain A.S.-I P.W.14 by Altaf Hussain P.W.10, brother of the deceased and eye-witness of the occurrence, which was recorded vide F.I.R. Exh.P.J. He proceeded to the . Civil Dispensary Mandra, prepared the injury sheet Exh.P.K and the inquest report Exh.P.L. And sent the dead body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. On the following day he visited the spot, took into possession crime empties of .38 bore and sealed them into a parcel vide memo. Exh. P.F. He also took into possession three crime empties of 32 bore and made them into a parcel through memo. Exh.P.G. The accused were not available, and therefore, warrants of arrest under section 204, Cr.P.C. Were obtained from the Ilaqa Magistrate against them and proceedings under section 87-88, Cr.P.C. Were also initiated against the accused. Muhammad Fazil accused was found innocent by the investigating agency and, as such, he was discharged under section 169, Cr.P.C. Qamar Zaman accused was murdered before the commencement of the trial. Consequently, complete challan against Farooq Zaman and Zulfiqar All respondents was submitted to the Ilaqa Magistrate, who, in his turn, sent up the aforementioned two respondents for trial before the Court of Session. The learned trial Court, after framing of the necessary charge-sheet, recording the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. And on the appraisal thereof, came to the conclusion that the case against the respondents was not free from doubt and acquitted them vide his judgment dated 30-4-1978. It appears that the State did not file appeal against it and the petitioner filed revision petition before the High Court which too, was dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence the instant appeal through leave of the Court.
5. ' We have heard Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate, for the appellant; Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate, for the respondents; and have perused the record of the case with their assistance.
6. ' The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court did not press his revision petition against Zulfiqar All respondent No,2, Qamar Zaman and Muhammad Fazil and made his submissions only with regard to the involvement of Farooq Zaman in the instant tragedy. Even according to the leave granting order, leave has been refused against Zulfiqar All respondent No,2.
7. We are, thereof, concerned only with the implication of Farooq Zaman respondent No, 1 for causing the death of Gul Hassan deceased.
8. ' The reasons advanced by the learned trial Court for the acquittal of the accused are that the prosecution witnesses were not only the close relations of the deceased but were also inimical to the accused and fell in the category of the interested witnesses and that without independent corroboration no reliance can be placed on their depositions for convicting the respondents on a murder charge; that the occurrence took place in a bazaar where many persons were present but no independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case; that there was conflict between the medical evidence and the eye-witnesses' account, inasmuch as, in the F.I.R. Only one effective shot was alleged to have hit the deceased on his left shoulder whereas the post-mortem report disclosed one more injury on his left fore-arm; that there was no corroboration of the ocular account of the occurrence furnished by the P.Ws. Because no blood was found on the spot nor any mark of bullet or pellet was noticed at the adjoining walls of the venue of occurrence and the empties recovered from the spot were neither produced nor exhibited in Court; that in spite of firing at the P.Ws. From close range they escaped unhurt; that the possibility of the occurrence having taken place after sunset and identification of the accused doubtful could not be excluded; that the place of occurrence is close to the police station but in spite of large number of shots none from the police could arrive at the spot; and that the motive advanced by the prosecution against Gul Hassan deceased had not been satisfactorily established. The injury on the person of Farooq Zaman was not considered against him because according to Altaf Hussain P.W. One brick-bat had been thrown at him but the medical opinion showed two healed wounds on his person and the duration thereof could possibly be some time before the occurrence. The abscondence of the accused was considered a weak piece of corroborative evidence. The High Court too could not be persuaded to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in upsetting the judgment of the trial Court in view of the aforementioned reasons.
9. ' The learned counsel for the appellant emphatically argued that the case of Farooq Zaman could be distinguished from the case of the other acquitted accused and by sifting the grain from the chaff, the trial Court was expected to convict him for the murder of the deceased Gul Hassan.
10. According to him, he was attributed effective role of firing with pistol at the deceased which fact was corroborated by the recoveries of empties of pistol from the spot and by medical evidence showing injury on the person of the deceased, coupled with the injuries sustained by respondent No,1 with the brick-bat hurled at him by Altaf Hussain P.W.10 and his abscondence after the occurrence.
11. ' We have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. There is no cavil with the proposition that the trial Court could, on the appraisal of the evidence produced before it, sift the grain from the chaff and acquit those persons involved in the occurrence whose implication was not free from doubt and convict those' against whom sufficient direct evidence corroborated by circumstantial evidence was available. But it is equally established principle of law by now that the consideration of factual aspect of the case is the exclusive domain of the trial Court and the appellate Court. The revisional Court has limited jurisdiction of considering illegalities or material irregularities allegedly committed by the lower forums. As stated earlier, no appeal had been filed by the State and the learned High Court was seized of the matter as a revisional Court under section 439, Cr.P.C. Under which even in case of acceptance it could order retrial and could not convert the order of acquittal into one of conviction. The High Court being not convinced of any illegality or material irregularity declined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in reversing the judgment of the trial Court based on sound reasons so far as the factual aspect of the case was concerned.
12. ' In the case of appeal against acquittal too, certain guidelines have been formulated by this Court which have to be kept in view before setting at naught the acquittal order. In the case of Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan (P.L.D. 1985 Supreme Court 11) on the consideration of the earlier relevant case-law on the point, the following guidelines were enumerated:-- "In an appeal against acquittal the Supreme Court would not on principle ordinarily interfere and instead would give due weight and consideration to the findings of the Court acquitting the accused. This approach is slightly different than that in an appeal against conviction when leave is granted only for the re-appraisement of evidence which then is undertaken so as to see that benefit of every reasonable doubt should be extended to the accused. This difference of approach is mainly conditioned by the fact that the acquittal carries with it the two well-accepted presumptions: One initial, that, till found guilty, the accused is innocent; andTwo that again after the trial a Court below confirmed the assumption of innocence.
(2) The acquittal will not carry the second presumption and will also thus lose the first one if on points having conclusive effect on the end result the Court below; (a) disregarded material evidence; (b) misread such evidence; (c) received such evidence illegally.
(3) In either case the well-known principles of re-appraisement of evidence will have to be kept in view when examining the strength of the views expressed by the Court below. They will not be brushed aside lightly on mere assumptions keeping always in view that a departure from the normal principle must be necessitated by obligatory observances of somehigher principle as noted above and for no other reason.
(4) The Court would not interfere with acquittal merely because on reappraisal of the evidence it comes to the conclusion different from that of the Court acquitting the accused provided both the conclusions are reasonably possible. If, however, the conclusion reached by that Court was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same and was impossible then this Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusion and irresistible conclusion; and that too with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and for no other purpose. The important test visualised in these cases, in this behalf was that the finding sought to be interfered with, after scrutiny under the foregoing searching light, should be found wholly as artificial, shocking and ridiculous."
13. ' In a latest case of Yar Muhammad and 3 others v. The State (1992 SCM R 96) this Court observed as under:-- "In view of these discrepancies the learned trial Court acquitted the appellants. The High Court was hearing an acquittal appeal and the _principles for setting aside an order of acquittal are now well settled. Unless the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, completely illegal and on perusal of evidence no other decision can be given except that the accused is guilty or there has been complete misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice, the High Court will not exercise jurisdiction under section 417, Cr.P.C. In exercising this jurisdiction the High Court is always slow unless it feels that gross injustice has been done in the administration of criminal justice."
14. In view of the principles enunciated in the above quoted rulings, the judgment of the trial Court is supported by sound reasons and this Court cannot substitute its own findings in place thereof unless it also comes to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Court as well as that of the High Court are 'artificial, shocking, ridiculous, based on misreading of evidence and leading to miscarriage of justice.' We have scanned the evidence and could not find any legal error in the judgments of the lower forums. Resultantly, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.