' This revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated 17-7-1993 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, whereby he acquitted the respondents of the charge under section 302/149/148, P.P.C.
2. As per statement Exh.PJ of Heeray Khan complainant (P.W.12), on the basis of which formal F.I.R.
Exh.PJ/1 was recorded by Bashir Ahmad, Head Constable (P.W.5), it is alleged that he had criminal litigation with Aslam due to murders. On the preceding evening of the occurrence, young lads of Khushi Muhammad accused etc. Had a quarrel with the boys of the complainant party. The accused party extended threats to them. On 10-10-1991, at about 7-30 a.m. Arshad Mahmood deceased son of the complainant, Shahbaz (P.W.13) and Maqsood deceased were bringing milk from their cattleshed to their house. When they were at a distance of one acre from the house of the complainant, Khushi Muhammad respondent armed with a Sota, Muhammad Mansha son of Khushi Muhammad armed with a Sota, Muhammad Akbar son of Khushi Muhammad armed with a revolver, Riasat Ali son of Ismail armed with a carbine, Rafaqat son of Ismail armed with a pistol, Nazir Ahmad alias Ashraf son of Allah Ditta armed with a Sota, Muhammad Riaz son of Ghulam Rasool, armed with 7MM rifle, Faiz son of Allah Rakha armed with .12 bore gun, Rehmat Ali armed with 7MM rifle, Sanaullah armed with Sota, Javed armed with Sota, Muhammad Afzal armed with 7MM rifle, Muhammad Aslam armed with 7MM rifle, Muhammad Ishaq armed with a pistol, Muhammad Ashraf armed with 7MM rifle and Muhammad Mansha armed with a Sota, who were ambushing in the Til crop started firing at them, but they saved their lives by way of running.
Muhammad Ashraf son of Khushi Muhammad, who was armed with a 7MM rifle fired at Arshad Mahmood which hit him on his chest, who died at the spot, Liaqat Ali (P.O.) fired with his rifle which hit Maqsud on his abdomen and he was seriously injured. The occurrence was witnessed besides the complainant by Faqir Muhammad (P.W.14), Taj Din and Khan Muhammad (given up P.Ws.).
3. Learned counsel has not seriously challenged the acquittal of the respondents except that of Muhammad Ashraf respondent No,4. He submitted that Muhammad Ashraf in his statement has admitted his presence at the scene and the fatal shot is also attributed to him, so his acquittal has resulted into miscarriage of justice, when the ocular version is fully corroborated by the medical evidence brought on the record. He further contended that the opinion of the Investigating Officer that Muhammad Ashraf respondent was found innocent during the course of investigation is not based upon proper evidence and the trial Court being influenced by this opinion of the Investigating Officer acquitted him as well.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and have gone through the record minutely as well as the reasons advanced by the learned trial Judge while acquitting the respondent. As the learned counsel has not seriously challenged the acquittal of fifteen accused- respondents, excluding respondent No,4, which shows that the complainant has thrown his net very wide and coupled with the background of enmity, admitted in the F.I.R. Itself which is the motive for the present occurrence, it would not be safe to place reliance on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant, as well as the eye witnesses who are the close relations of the deceased. Heeray Khan complainant (P.W.13) is the father of the deceased, Shahbaz (P.W.13) is the brother of the deceased and Faqir Muhammad P.W.14 is the uncle of Heera Khan complainant.
There is no independent corroboration of the ocular version, as the gun recovered at the instance of respondent No,4 did not match with any crime empty recovered from the spot. Interestingly, 12 crime emptie found at the spot were himself taken into possession by the complainant an handed over to the police three days after the occurrence. The trial Judge also observed that the ocular version is being contradicted by the medical evidence Learned counsel has failed to point out any gross misreading of evidence by the learned Judge; hence the impugned judgment is not open to any exception. The revision petition is devoid of any force and is dismissed in limine.
Revision .