' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---Abid Hussain alias Mithu and five others (respondents Nos. 1 to 6) were tried by the Punjab Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) No, V, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, for offences punishable under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code allegedly committed by them on 3-10-1989 at 8--00 a.m. In Chak No, 112/JB, within the limits of Police Station Chak Jhumra, District Faisalabad. Acquitting them of the charge under section 302/149, P.P.C. For the murder of Shahzad Akhtar and also acquitting Ijaz alias Juji and Muhammad Ibrahim (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) of all the charges, the trial Court convicted and sentenced Abid Hussain alias Mithu, Safdar Ali, Ijaz alias Kala and Muhammad All alias Mand (respondents Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 respectively) as under:--
(i) Under section 452/34, P.P.C., to seven years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,50,000 each, or in default of payment of fine 1-3/4 years' R.I. More, each.
(ii) Under section 436/34, P.P.C., to imprisonment for life, each.
2. The appeal filed by the aforesaid four convicts (respondents Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6) was accepted and they were acquitted of the charge levelled against them, by the Lahore High Court vide its judgment dated 6-12-1993. Hence this petition for leave to appeal against acquittal.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in order to take revenge of incident which took place two days before the occurrence in which Shahzad Akhtar deceased and Abid Hussain alias Mithu (respondent No, 1) had quarrelled with each other and the deceased had given beating to Abid Hussain/accused-respondent, the six respondents Ijaz alias Juji and Abid Hussain alias Mithu armed with .12 bore guns, Safdar Ali, Ijaz alias Kala and Muhammad Ali alias Mand armed with rifles and Muhammad Ibrahim empty-handed, trespassed into the house of the deceased at the eventful time. Ijaz alias Juji fired shot hitting the chest of the deceased resulting in his instantaneous death. The households and other articles including tape-recorder etc. Were set on fire. The doors and windows of the house were also burnt. The occurrence was seen by Muhammad Iqbal (P.W. 6), Muhammad Tufail (P.W.7) and Mst. Sharifan Akhtar (P.W.8). While firing in the air, the accused/respondents made good their escape. Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.6) left for the Police Station to lodge the report. On the way to the police station, he met Ch. Mukhtar Ali, S.H.O. (P.W.9) at Khitchian More and made a statement (Exh. PD) on basis whereof formal F.I.R. Was drawn up at the Police Station Chak Jhumra at 10-30 a.m. On the same day.
4. The prosecution relied on the ocular evidence furnished by Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.6), Muhammad Tufail (P.W.7) and Mst. Sharifan Akhtar (P.W.8) allegedly corroborated by the motive, medical evidence and the recoveries of guns from the respondents except Muhammad Ibrahim.
5. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The respondents other than Ijaz alias Juji denied their presence and participation in the occurrence. Raising plea of self-defence, Ijaz alias Juji stated:-- "I am innocent. On the day of occurrence, at the time of occurrence I alongwith Abdul Sattar son of Sadiq of my Chak were going towards my house after easing myself while Abdul Sattar met me on the way and when we were passing in front of the house of Shahzad Akhtar deceased he fired at me with his .12 bore gun from his Bethak, hitting on my right leg (he fired twice) and when Abdul Sattar tried to save me Shahzad Akhtar also fired at him hitting on his various parts of the body and in the meanwhile my younger brother Riaz came there and he fired at Shahzad Akhtar deceased in the exercise of right of defence of myself as well as Abdul Sattar, when Shahzad Akhtar deceased was about to fire on us. Asa result of the fire by my younger brother Shahzad Akhtar fell down in his Bethak. After receiving the injuries I fell down because I was unable to walk on account of the fractures on my right leg. Thereafter my father co-accused Ibrahim came there and transported me to the hospital. During the investigation while I was at DHQ Hospital, FSD Mukhtar Ali SI/P.W.
Recorded my statement, as stated by me today."
' In defence he tendered documents Exh.DG, DH, DI, DJ and DK. He and the co-accused as well, made statements on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In disproof of the charges against them. No witness was examined in defence.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the respondents; that the presence of the eye-witnesses on the spot at the time of occurrence was natural; that the eyewitnesses had no serious enmity with the accused respondents to involve them falsely in the case; that the motive, medical evidence, recoveries of the guns from the accused respondents and the circumstance of the recovery of the burnt household articles and doors etc., corroborate the statements of the witnesses. Furthermore, the site plan will show that the eye-witnesses were in a position to see the occurrence and that the High Court has acquitted the accused without justification.
7. This is a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal. Consideration for interference in an appeal/petition against acquittal and in an appeal/petition from conviction are altogether different. The well-settled principles for the appreciation of appeals against acquittal are--
(i) that with the acquittal, the presumption of the innocence of the accused becomes double; one initial, that till found guilty he is innocent, and two, that after his trial a Court below has confirmed the assumption of innocence;
(ii) that unless all the grounds on which the High Court had purported to acquit the accused were not supportable from the evidence on record, Supreme Court would be reluctant to interfere, even though, upon the same evidence it may be tempted to come to a different conclusion;
(iii) that unless the conclusion recorded by a Court below was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same, the Supreme Court would not interfere;
(iv) that unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse and the reasons therefor are artificial and ridiculous, the Supreme Court would not interfere; and
(v) that the Supreme Court, however, would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusive and irresistible conclusion, and that too, with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and for no other purpose.
' So, keeping in view these principles, we have appreciated the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties with care.
8. While discussing the motive and the ocular evidence, the High Court, in paragraph 17 of its judgment, has observed as under:-- 'As per the statement of the doctor, Ijaz alias Juji and Abdul Sattar were injured with fire-arm and they were examined by the doctor at 10-30 a.m., i,e. Within about 2 hours of the occurrence. The counter-version was given by Javaid Iqbal vide application mark-A, to the Investigator and the claim of Ijaz alias Juji is also believable that he gave the same version in the hospital on 6-10-1989.
The cross-version was partly accepted by the investigator. The injuries to Ijaz alias Juji and Sattar have not been explained at the trial. Keeping in view the nature and location of the injuries we cannot entertain any doubt that these were self-suffered or self-inflicted. The motive part of the story was stated to by the complainant but in cross-examination he admitted that when the earlier occurrence between Abid Hussain appellant and the deceased took place he was not present and he was rather told about it at night by Mst. Sharifan. Mst. Sharifan did not say a single word in this behalf. So as to motive part of the story there was no evidence. The injuries to one of the accused and Abdul Sattar not having been explained, we have but to entertain the defence plea in this regard. The essential features of the occurrence having been suppressed by the eye-witnesses, they cannot be believed unless corroborated."
9. Ijaz alias Juji was examined by Dr. Muhammad Ajmal Mian (P.W.1) within two hours of the occurrence. He had four fire-arm injuries on his person, out of which two injuries were grievous. The nature of the injuries and the kind of weapon used for causing the same, exclude the possibility of the injuries being self-inflicted or self-suffered. In the circumstances of the case, it would be legitimate to infer that he had received the injuries during the occurrence. Strangely enough, the injuries of the accused were suppressed in the F.I.R. And in the evidence before the Court which indicates that the eyewitnesses had given evidence with the motive other than a desire to disclose the truth so far as known to them. This circumstance would not only throw doubt on their statements but would make the prosecution case/version doubtful in its entire set-up more particularly when the plea of self-defence of person has been raised by the injured accused. As for motive, the prosecution case itself was that the matter was patched up. Furthermore, the best witnesses of the motive namely, Ghulam Ali and Muhammad Shafi were not produced by the prosecution. This being the position, it would be difficult to observe that the grounds on which the High Court had acquitted the accused are not supportable from the evidence on record or that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the conclusion at which the High Court has arrived at.
10. When we talk of corroboration, it is always required with regard to the version of the prosecution and with regard to the identity of each accused. Since no empty was recovered from the spot, therefore, the recoveries of firearms from the accused/respondents are of no consequence. The medical evidence may confirm the ocular evidence with regard to the seat of the injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence, duration between the injuries and the death and the presence of the injured P.W. Or the accused on the spot, but it would not connect the accused with the commission of the IE crime. The factum of the presence of the witnesses being natural would establish their presence on the spot but would not take the prosecution case any further.
The three eye-witnesses were not believed by the trial Court to the extent of the charge of the murder of Shahzad Akhtar, so, all the accused were acquitted of this charge. The absence of enmity of the eye-witnesses with the accused would also not stamp their statements with truth. By suppressing injuries of the accused they have damaged their veracity and injured their integrity, and also shaked the confidence of the Court and as such they are no more confidence inspiring witnesses. The reasons given by the High Court for H disbelieving the eye-witnesses are not artificial. In the circumstances of the case, the rule of prudence does require independent corroboration of the eyewitnesses which is not available. The judgment of the High Court is not perverse.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that there being no compelling reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal, leave to appeal is refused. .