1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This appeal through leave of the Court against a judgment of acquittal in a case of murder arises out of the facts and circumstances noted in the leave grant order as under: "The occurrence in this case is alleged to have taken place on 11-7-1982 at 5-00 p.m. In the area of village Sheikh Chuhar, Police Station Saddar, Jhang, the report of which was made by Muhammad Afzal Shah (P.W. 11) the same night at 8-25 p.m. It was alleged that Nazar Shah deceased was returning home from the Dera of Allah Bakhsh Lohar followed by Muhammad Afzal Shah (P.W.11) who was returning from Chah Ahmadwala. When the deceased was passing through the village graveyard Mazhar Hussain (respondent No.1), Umar Draz and Mehdi Shah (acquitted accused) armed with Barchhas, Asghar Hussain Shah (respondent No.2) armed with a knife, Muhammad Nawaz (respondent No.3), Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Nawaz (acquitted accused) armed with Kulharis, Tasaddaque (acquitted accused) armed with a Ballam and Mushtaq (acquitted accused) armed with a Chhura came out of a hiding and launched an attack on the deceased while raising Lalkaras. The complainant ran towards the spot when in the meantime Khurshid Abbas (given up P.W.) and Obaid-urRehman (P.W.12) also came to the spot running. Within their view, Muhammad Nawaz son of Maddad Shah gave two Kulhari blows on the head of the deceased, Umar Draz gave two barchha blows on the left flank of the deceased, felling the deceased on the ground. Abdul Ghafoor then gave him two successive Kulhari blows on his head, Mehdi Shah gave two Barchha blows on the left flank and left side of the spinalcord, Mazhar Shah gave a Barchha blow in the back, Mushtaq gave him Chhura blow in the left side of hip, Tasaddaque caused a Ballam blow on the left side of the back and then all the accused caused injuries to Nazar Shah on his head, on the back of both hands and left shoulder. After causing the injuries the assailants left the spot raising Lalkaras. It was further alleged that while leaving, the assailants also took away a gold ring and wrist watch of the deceased.
2. ' The motive given in the FIR is that 20 years back Nazar Shah deceased and the three others had killed the grandfather of Mehdi Shah, further that seven years back Abdul Ghafoor etc. Had attempted at the life of the complainant and Nazar Shah and a case under section 307, P.P.C. Was pending in the Court and, therefore, the present occurrence.
3. ' The report was recorded by Muhammad Bashir S.I.(P.W.13). He reached the spot and started investigation. He recovered blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence and after preparing the injury sheet and inquest report of the deceased sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The three respondents, namely, Mazhar Hussain Shah, Asghar Hussain Shah and Muhammad Nawaz Shah, were arrested on 30-7-82 and on the same day Asghar Hussain Shah respondent produced bloodstained knife Ex.P4 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.P.
4. On the Ist of August 1982, on the pointation of Mazhar Hussain Shah and Muhammad Nawaz (respondents) blood-stained spear (Exh.P5) and blood-stained Kulhari (Exh.P6) were recovered as per memo Exh.PF. And Exh.PG.
5. ' The three respondents alongwith their co-accused were put to trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, who after recording the evidence of the prosecution and the statements of the respondents and the acquitted accused, vide his judgment dated 24-1-1984, convicted Mazhar Hussain Shah, Asghar Hussain Shah and Muhammad Nawaz under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to death plus a fine of Rs.3,000 each or in default to one year's R.I. Each. It was also directed that a sum of Rs.5,000 be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased by each of them. The rest of the accused were acquitted for lack of evidence against them. The appeal filed by the respondents in the High Court was allowed and they were acquitted as per the impugned judgment."
6. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the following contentions for reappraisal of the evidence:-- ' 'That though the eye-version account of the incident in this case has been furnished by interested witnesses but since their version has been fully supported by the recovery of the weapons of offence at the pointation of the three respondents, therefore, the High Court was wrong in discarding the evidence on the two witnesses. He further submitted that the F.I.R. In this case was lodged promptly, the motive having been established, the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court was arbitrary and unjustified. He also submitted that the deceased had as many as 29 injuries on his person, of them 3 were stab wounds, 24 incised wounds, 1 abrasion and 1 contusion.
7. The nature of the injuries is such that it fully establishes that it were the respondents who were responsible for causing the death of Nazar Shah."
8. ' Before us during the arguments both the learned counsel agreed that if the recovery evidence has either been misread or excluded from consideration in such a manner that a valuable piece of corroboratory evidence has not been put to proper use, then it could be treated as ignoring substantial item of evidence besides it could be treated as a case of grave miscarriage of justice as well. It has to be straightaway noticed that the High Court did face these questions squarely; and, in our view, it was conscious of the possibility of the corroboratory evidence changing the whole picture and thus to be kept in view.
9. ' This aspect of the case was examined by the High Court in the impugned judgment as under: "The appellants were arrested on 30-7-1982. It was deposed at the trial that Asghar appellant had produced blood-stained knife (P.4) at the time of his arrest, while Mazhar Hussain had led to the recovery of Barchha (P.5) from his cattleshed on 1-8-1982 and Muhammad Nawaz appellant had led to the recovery of blood-stained hatchet (P.6) from his Kotha on the same day.
10. ' The only witness from public who attested recovery memos is Israr Hussain. He is nephew of the deceased. He was complainant in the case registered against Ghafoor Shah, Mushtaq Shah acquitted accused and Mazhar Shah alongwith others under section 307, P.P.C. The revision petition filed by him against the acquittal of the accused in the said case was pending at the time he made statement against the accused of this case. Obviously, he was interested in the deceased because of his relationship and had animus against the accused. His testimony, therefore, will have to be scrutinised with care and caution.
11. ' According to Israr Hussain, Asghar appellant had produced the knife before the S.I., bringing out the same from his pocket. The S.I. Has not stated anything particular in this regard. According to him (Israr Hussain) Asghar and the other two appellants were produced before the police by Muhammad Aslam Bharwana and he had brought them in a jeep. It seems difficult to believe that Asghar would have brought the knife with him, which he used for the commission of crime and that too stained with blood, particularly so when the other two co-accused, who had come alongwith him had not brought their weapons. The story of production of knife by Asghar appellant in the manner stated seems unbelievable. The statements of the two witnesses, i.e. Israr Hussain, who is interested witness and the S.I., do not inspire confidence.
12. ' Both the witnesses have made discrepant statements about the recoveries said to have been effected at the instance of Mazhar Shah and Muhammad Nawaz appellants. Their statements are particularly discrepant in regard to their having been taken to places of recoveries. According to Israr Hussain they were taken separately from the village school while according to the S.I. Both were taken together. Israr Hussain stated that after the recovery was effected at the instance of one, he was brought back to the school and then the second was taken while according to the S.I., both were taken together and they got the recoveries effected one by one. The other aspect is that it is admitted by both the witnesses that persons other than the two witnesses, who had attested the recovery memos, were also available. They were definitely independent witnesses. The choice made by the S.I. To attest recoveries only by related witnesses speaks of ingenuine motives on his part.
13. ' After having carefully considered the evidence of recoveries of weapons of offence, we are convinced that no implicit reliance can be placed on the same."
14. The High Court expressed its opinion about the recoveries and the evidence led in support thereof in no uncertain terms. We have no reason to differ with the said opinion and even if it would have been a question of mere difference of opinion the judgment of acquittal in this case could not have been set aside. Accordingly, finding the High Court approach as unexceptionable we fmd no justification for interference. This appeal, therefore, is dismissed.