' Through this petition filed under section 439, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Nazir petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment, dated 27-5-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby he acquitted the respondents from the charge under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. The petitioner filed this petition against acquittal of six respondents but this Court vide order, dated 27-10-1992 admitted this petition qua the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 only and the petition to the extent of Muhammad Hussain, Walayat, Zafar alias Jaffer was dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in F.I.R. Exh.P.E./1 on the basis of the statement of Muhammad Nazir (Exh.P.E.) are that on 18-4-1989 at about 4-30 p.m. In the area of Sulkhanabad, Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala, (1) Muhammad Hussain equipped with Danda, (2) Inayat equipped with Chhuri, (3) Hadayat equipped with Soua, (4) Arif equipped with Khanjar, (5)
Wallayat equipped with Khanjar sons of Muhammad Hussain, (6) Jafar son of Riasat All equipped with Chhuri were sitting in ambush, when Muhammad Hussain aforesaid raised Lalkara to catch hold of Muhammad Latif, who was then driving tractor. At that point Muhammad Latif while coming down from the tractor, tried to run away but Walayat and Jaffer caught hold of said Muhammad Latif by Japha. Then Inayat inflicted Chhuri blow on right side of the chest, Hadayat inflicted Soua blow which hit Latif deceased on right side of the belly, when Arif inflicted Khanjar blow on left shoulder of the deceased, Latif deceased fell down and the respondents thereafter left the place by raising Lalkaras. Muhammad Latif died on the spot due to the injuries.
' The motive behind the occurrence was that Muhammad Latif deceased had developed illicit relations with Mst. Maqboolan Bibi, for which they, out of enmity murdered Muhammad Latif in consultation with each other in furtherance of their common intention. Thus, the matter was reported by the complainant for police proceedings in the case.
4. Dr. Manzoor Hussain, M.O., D.H.Q. Hospital Gujranwala performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Latif, deceased and found the following injuries on his person:--
(1) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x going deep on the chest, cavity on the front of the right chest 2 c.m. Valarical 5 c.m. From the mid-line in the second intercostal space.
(2) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 3/4 c.m. x going deep in abdominal cavity going deep in the right side of the abdomen on front 5 c.m. From the umbilicus.
(3) Incised wound 1 c.m. x 1/3 c.m. Muscular deep back of the right shoulder.
' Death in this case was stated to be result of haemorrhage and shock due to injury No,1 and injury No,2 which were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Exh.P.G. Is the copy of P.M. Examination and Exh.P.G./1 is the sketch of the injuries.
5. The prosecution examined P.W.4 and P.W.5 as the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.9 is the doctor who did the post-mortem examination and remaining are the formal witnesses and the Investigating OfficeRs, The reports of the Chemical Examiner and that of the Serologist are Exhs.P.M., P.N., P.M./1 and P.N./1. The report Exh.P.N/1 is the result of dagger of Arif respondent, Chhuri of Inayat, respondent and also regarding iron-Soua of Hadayat respondent. The respondents in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Traversed the prosecution allegations and after having denied their involvement professed their innocence by saying that it was a blind murder and they were involved due to party faction. However, Hadayat, Arif and Wallayat respondents also appeared under section 340(2), G.P.C. The motive was also repelled by them. After recording the prosecution evidence and the defence version the learned trial Court acquitted all the respondents as mentioned above.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court has failed to give proper weight to the ocular testimony which has resulted in the wrong inferences whereby a grave miscarriage of justice has taken place. He argued that the motive on the part of the respondents has been fully established which was good enough to prompt them to cause this murder. It was argued that the description of injuries as brought forth by the ocular testimony fully accords with the medical evidence and if the said ocular testimony and the medical evidence is read together they get sufficient corroboration from the recoveries made from the respondents. It was argued that the learned lower Court had discarded the recoveries on account of certain minor discrepancies which certainly do not have any part to play in the dispensation of criminal justice. It was lastly argued that the prosecution case stands fully established through ocular account furnished by P.W.4 and P.W.5, the motive, the medical evidence, the recovery evidence and the expert evidence, hence there was no reason to discard the same by the learned trial Court and to acquit the respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the interested witnesses and, therefore, their testimony is to be judged on the basis of some safe and independent corroborative evidence only. He pointed out that P.W.5 appeared for the first time in the Court and did not get his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Before the police during the investigation so his statement is open to all doubts and is not worthy of credence. Lastly it was argued that the ocular account is not in full accord with the medical evidence so giving preference to the medical evidence the case of the prosecution does not stand on its leg and has rightly been discarded by the learned trial Court.
8. After hearing both sides I have also gone through the record very minutely. I find that P.W.9, the doctor had admitted during crQss-examination that sharp-edged pointed weapon can produce only penetrating injury but not the incised wound. Upon this admission of the doctor the learned trial Court found that injury No,2 on the abdomen of the deceased could not be sustained with ice- pick (Soua). It was also of the view that injury No,1 had been caused by a double sharp-edged weapon like dagger and not Chhuri so all the injuries on the person of the deceased were inflicted with one and the same weapon. According to the learned trial Court the medical evidence falsified the testimony of the ocular evidence of the case and, therefore, the ocular account lost its testimony. The second discrepancy which weighed before the learned trial Court was that P.W.4 had admitted that he alongwith Muhammad Latif, deceased had taken their meal at 3-00 p.m. But as per observation of P.W.9 (Exh.P.G.) the stomach of the deceased was found empty on 19-9-1989 at 11 a.m. Whereas the time of death was stated by the police as 5-30 p.m. There was a difference of twenty-four hours between death and post-mortem and, therefore, it has rightly been concluded by the learned trial Court that the medical evidence certainly has created doubt so far as the testimony of the eyewitnesses was concerned. The other most important aspect of the case is that no tractor-trolly as used by the deceased at the time of incident were found or shown to any of the P.Ws. And nor they were recovered. In view of these circumstances I also endorse the finding of the learned trial Court. So far as the recovery evidence in this case is concerned, as the same is belied by the medical report Exhs.P.G. And Exh.P.G./1 read with the statement of P.W.9 since the use of all weapons of offence had become medically impossible; when the use of Soua and Chhuri were ruled out by the doctor. Even otherwise the recoveries having been testified by P.W.3 who has been held to be a chance witness of doubtful integrity, therefore, have also rightly been disbelieved.
9. Although it is not necessary in every case to prove motive because so many atrocious crimes are committed without motive but it is a settled principle of law that once the motive is alleged by the prosecution then it is its duty to prove the same in support of their case for the involvement of the accused in the offence committed. The trial Court rightly found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the deceased had developed illicit liaison with Mst. Maqboolan, sister of the four accused respondents and daughter of one.
10. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case 1 do not find it a fit case for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court when the State has not filed any appeal. Otherwise the principle of interference in revision petition from acquittal of the accused has been laid down in so many judgments of this Court and that of the Supreme Court that the High Court should not interfere with orders of acquittal if it could not be said that the reasons given by the trial Court were perverse or wholly illogical or unsustainable. The interference can only be justified where the reasons advanced by the learned trial Court were wholly artificial. Retrial cannot be ordered unless it is proved that acquittal was based on technical ground and nor it can be set side on the ground that different view could be taken by the Superior Court if it was trying the case.
11. Resultantly I do not find any force in this revision petition which is dismissed.
Revision .