' One Muhammad Shafi, has filed this revision petition under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. Against the judgment dated 28-4-1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal whereby he acquitted Moris Masih, Muhammad Ayyub and Muhammad Saleem respondents-accused in a case F.I.R. No,47 dated 25-1-1986 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Daska. When the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the evidence of three P.Ws. On 11-7- 1988 Moris Masih one of the accused-respondents made an application under section 338, Cr.P.C.
To record his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. As he wanted to be declared as approver.
' The application was allowed by the District Magistrate, Moris Masih was declared as approver and he added that Mst. Irshad Bibi alias Razia alias Nabila as one of the accused who was arrested and supplementary challan was submitted.
2. According to the F.I.R. One All Muhammad made a statement on 25-1-1986 before Riaz Ahmad A.S.I. (P.W.16) that he went to his fields in the area of village Malkay and he saw a headless nude dead body lying over there. He also informed Abdur Rashid Councillor of the area and one Bashir Ahmed. Leaving them at the spot, he reported the matter to the police. On the basis of his application formal F.I.R. Was registered and after investigation, the above-mentioned accused were challaned. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and they claimed their trial.
3. To substantiate the charge against the respondents, the prosecution examined 16 P.Ws. Including Doctor, who did the post-mortem examination, the witnesses of motive, of last seen eye-witness account and some evidence of recoveries.
4. Dr. Gul Nawaz Bajwa, Medical Officer (P.W.6) did the post-mortem examination of a headless body and he found five injuries inflicted thereon. In his opinion the death was due to injury No,1 which was an incised wound cutting the whole neck. Injury No,3 was caused with blunt weapon and the rest all were by heavy sharp-edged weapon. All the injuries were ante-mortem. Time between injuries and death was sudden and between death and postmortem was 30 to 60 hours. He also separately conducted the pot-mortem examination on the head of an unknown person on 17-2- 1986. In his opinion the head corresponded to the dead body whose post-mortem was done on 25- 1-1986.
' No evidence to prove the motive was produced as to the cause for what the murder was committed.
5. In order to prove the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution produced Ihsanul Haq (P.W.12) who stated that on 16-1-1986 Ramzan alias Jani came to him and told that he was married with Lubna (P.W.14). He took him and Lubna to his house and served them with a dinner. After the dinner Muhammad Ramzan disclosed that he wanted to marry Mst. Lubna; when this fact came to the knowledge of the mother of this witness she directed him to take them out of her house.
Consequently he took them to his workshop and ultimately they stayed in the house of Saleem, his friend.
' Mst. Lubna (P.W.14) stated that the sister of Ramzan alias Jani deceased was married to Muhammad Rashid her cousin and, therefore, she was known to Ramzan. She had good relations with the deceased and therefore, wanted to marry with him. On 10-1-1986 Ramzan deceased took her to his sister Razia Bibi and after, that Saleem took them to his bungalow in Islamabad. Ayub, Mst. Irshad Bibi alias Razia alias Nabila, Muhammad Saleem and Alam Khan also came at the said bungalow. On 17-1-1986 they went to Rawal Dam and came back in the evening. On the said night, Ayub, Muhammad Saleem, Mst. Irshad Bibi they all conspired to kill Ramzan alias Jani by taking him to a far-off place. On 18-1-1986 early in the morning, Saleem, Ayyub, Ramzan alias Jani went to some place. In the evening time Saeed, the brother of Ramzan and Ihsan-ul-Haq came to the bungalow and demanded her person from Mst. Irshad Bibi. Irshad Bibi gave her some jewellery; she told that she had gone with. Muhammad Saleem, Ramzan and Muhammad Ayub deceased. After half an hour her father Muhammad Yaqoob, alongwith other persons came to the bungalow and Mst. Irshad Bibi was handed her over to them, so she went with them.
6. The most important evidence in this case is that of Moris Masih (P.W.13) who was declared as approver in the case. He stated that on 19-1-1986 he went to village Seeokay and saw Mst. Irshad Bibi, Ayub, Saleem, accused and Ramzan deceased near the school. They requested him to accompany them in connection with Nikah ceremony of Ramzan to be held on the Dera of one Colonel. He accompanied them. Ayub accused gave his Chaddir to Ramzan deceased in order to cover him from cold. When Ramzan took the Chaddir around his neck, Ayub caught hold of him from his neck, and Saleem accused caught him from his waist. Ramzan fell down. Ayub strangulated him from about 10 minutes. Ayub then removed his own clothes except the under- wear. Irshad Bibi handed over Toka to Ayub who caused four injuries upon the neck of the deceased with the result his head was cut off from the body. Ayub collected the mud from nearby Khaal and plastered the mud on the mouth of the neck of the deceased in order to stop the haemorrhage. The head was taken away by Ayub accused who threw the same in a deserted well.
' The clothes of Ayub which were stained with blood were put on fire on theParrali. Mst. Irshad Bibi threatened all the co-accused not to disclose the murder of Ramzan. This approver admitted during cross-examination that the complainant party had been meeting him in jail. Muhammad Ishaq, A.S.I. (P.W.1), Farman Ali (P.W.2), Allah Ditta, A.S.I. (P.W.3) and Ali Muhammad (P.W.4) are the formal witnesses. Bashir Ahmed (P.W.7) and Muhammad Saeed (P.W.8) did not support the prosecution case. Haji Muhammad Siddique (P.W.9) identified the dead body and Abdur Rashid (P.W.10) is witness of the recovery of Toka P.1 at the instance of the accused which was secured vide memo. Exh.P.G. Abdul Baqi (P.W.11) has not supported the prosecution. He was cross-examined by the learned D.D.A. Riaz Ahmad (P.W.16) partly investigated the case as he recorded the statement Exh.PA. He prepared the inquest report of the headless body which is Exh.P.O. He arrested Ayub on 23-3-1986 and Moris Masih, the approver, on 17-2-1986.
7. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused.
8. The State did not file any appeal against the acquittal of respondents on the ground that it is a case of no evidence but the complainant had filed a revision against the judgment of acquittal of the respondents for their fresh trial.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding of the learned trial Court is against facts and circumstances of the case and he misread the evidence while recording their acquittal. It was also argued that the learned trial Court had committed material irregularity and illegality while passing the impugned judgment by which a grave miscarriage of justice was done.
10. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record very minutely. I find that Moris Masih (P.W.13), the approver, has made an exculpatory statement wherein he has not shown his own participation in the occurrence, so it has got no evidential value. There is no eye-witness in the case nor any evidence on the point of motive has been produced that why the respondents were to commit this murder. The majority of the P.Ws. Have resiled from their statements on the point of identification of the head of the body. The result, therefore, was that the link of the chain connecting the accused with the crime was broken. The P.Ws. Had stated that they were shown photograph of the deceased and by that they had identified the head whereas they had not been shown the original head. The medical evidence is not in full accord with the ocular account furnished by the P.Ws.
11. The fundamental principle of universal application in cases dependent on circumstantial evidence, is that in order to justify the inference of guilt, the incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. In my view the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. As there was no probability of the accused being convicted under any offence.
12. Even otherwise, the principle of interference in revision petition from acquittal of the accused has been laid down in so many judgments of the superior Courts 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 grounds and nor it can be set aside on the ground that different view could be taken by the superior Court if it was trying the case.
13. Resultantly, this revision petition has no force and is dismissed.
Revision .