' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The respondents were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhakhar, on charges under sections 302, 307 and 449, read with section 149, and section 148, Pakistan Penal Code, for causing the death of Tasawar Hussain Shah, deceased, making murderous assault upon four persons, committing criminal trespass in the house of Ghulam Baqir Shah and rioting. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the respondents were responsible for their own acts; accordingly, he convicted Akhtar Hussain Shah alone on the charge under section 302 and sentenced him to death. As regards Sahib Alam Shah, Jeewan Shah and Afzal Shah he convicted them for different offences under section 307 and sentenced them to varying terms of rigorous imprisonment. He convicted Imdad Hussain Shah of an offence under section 323, Pakistan Penal Code. He also convicted all the respondents of the offence under section 452, Pakistan Penal Code, and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. On appeal and reference, the High Court too upheld the finding of the trial Court that the respondents were liable for their individual acts alone. It, however, acquitted Akhtar Hussain Shah of the charge under section 302 and instead convicted him of the offence under section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. It acquitted Sahib Alam Shah, Jeewan Shah and Afzal Shah on the charges under section 307 but convicted them of offences under section 308 of the same Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The conviction of Imdad Hussain Shah on the charge under section 323 was maintained. Apparently, it did not interfere with the convictions and sentences of the respondents under section 452, Pakistan Penal Code. The complainant party seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
2. The parties lived in village Razai Shah Shamali in Tehsil Bhakhar. Their houses were situate opposite to each other. The occurrence took place on 29-3-1987 at 7-15 a.m. According to the prosecution, Sahib Alam Shah, respondent, suspected that Nazar Hussain Shah (P.W.12) was having an affair with has daughter. To avenge the humiliation suffered by him on this account, he together with the other respondents, who were armed with shot-guns, trespassed into the house of Ghulam Baqir Shah and opened fire, killing Tasawar Hussain Shah and injuring Ghulam Baqir Shah (P.W.9), Kafayat Hussain Shah (P.W.10), Bashir Ahmad Shah (P.W.11) and Nazar Hussain Shah (P.W.12). The occurrence was reported by Ghulam Baqir Shah at Police Station, Saddar on the same day at 8-00 a.m. It may be mentioned that the police station was 3-1/2 kilometres from the place of occurrence.
3. The respondents pleaded not guilty at the trial. The defence version was that just before the occurrence the complainant party forcibly removed Sahib Alam Shah to the Haveli of Nazar Hussain Shah and started belabouring him. When some of the respondents went to rescue him they were fired at by the complainant party. They examined a Deputy Superintendent of Police who had partly investigated the case, in their defence.
4. After reviewing the evidence on record the High Court came to the conclusion that both parties had tried to suppress one truth. In this context, it noticed that the complainant party had failed to account for the numerous injuries found on the person of Sahib Alam Shah and Akhtar Hussain Shah, respondents soon after the occurrence; the story with regard to the capture of Jeewan Shah by the complainant party at the spot was not true; and, it was unlikely that the respondents were armed with guns at the time when Sahib Alam Shah and Akhtar Hussain Shah were assaulted by the complainant party. After discarding the versions of the prosecution and the defence the High Court observed:-- "We are, therefore, left with no alternative but to look for as to how the occurrence took place. One can visualise that over the affairs of one girl or the other (Mst. Iqbal Bibi or Mst. Musarat Bibi) both the parties collected either at the house of the appellants or that of Nazar Hussain or might be in the street as the houses of both parties are on the opposite side of the street in front of each other, and there when the matter heated up, the complainant family picking up Sota(s) injured the two appellants. It was then that the appellants took out the guns and injured the deceased and the eye-witnesses. The occurrence seems to have developed all of a sudden and the fire was ignited by the complainant party. The appellants cannot be said to have mounted the assault in the first instance as we must take the most favourable case for them. Each of the appellant is, therefore, to be burdened for the individual act."
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was unable to refer to any defect in the findings of the High Court. The law relating to appeals against acquittal has been summarised by this Court in the case of Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan (PLD 1985 SC 11); briefly stated, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with a judgment of acquittal unless it was shown that the view taken by the Court recording the judgment could not at all be supported. This is not the case here. We can therefore find no legal basis for interfering with the judgment of the High Court. Leave is refused.