JUDGMENT MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J.- The petitioner has filed the present revision petition to call in question the correctness and the legality of the judgment dated 13.4.1992 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala acquitted respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in a case registered vide FIR No.198 dated 1.6.1989 for an offence u/ss 302/148/149 PPC at P.S. Sadar, Kamonki. The case was registered on the report lodged by the brother of Habib Ullah deceased against unknown assailants.
2. The occurrence took place on the night between 31st of May and 1st of June, 1989 in village Pelu, 3 miles from P.S. Sadar, Kamonki Abdul Majid petitioner lodged the report Ex.PB on 1.6.89 at 8.30 A.M.
Which formed the basis of the formal FIR Ex.PB/1. He stated in the FIR that Habib Ullah deceased had contracted marriage with Mst Fatima Bibi respondent No. 5 about 15/16 years ago and from their wedlock a daughter named Mst. Maqboolan Bibi was born; that Mst. Fatima Bibi did not have good moral character; that at her instance, the deceased sold his land for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and deposited the sum in the bank; that Mst Fatima Bibi moved to Multan with the deceased and there tried to have him killed for obtaining the said amount but he luckily escaped; that about 3 years ago, the deceased returned to Pelu from Multan; that Mst. Fatima Bibi wanted' to mary Mst.
Maqboolan Bibi with one of her relatives for the sake of property of the deceased but the deceased did not agree whereupon Mst. Fatima Bibi got Habib Ullah killed in consultation with her relatives.
3. At the trial, the prosecution produced as many as 9 witnesses to prove its case. Ghulam Nabi PW.
3 and Rana Ashiq Ali PW. 5 were produced to prove recoveries of bloodstained cot P.1, blood- stained Khes P.2, Pillow P.3 (seemed vide recovery Memo Ex.PC), blood-stained earth (taken into possession vide recovery Memo Ex.PD), blood-stained hatchet P.6 (vide recovery Memo Ex.PE and Chhurri P.7 (vide recovery Memo Ex.PF). Muhammad Hafiz PW.6 stated that on the fateful night, they heard hue and cry from the side of the haveli of the deceased and went there. They saw Abdul Majid petitioner/complainant and his two sons standing in the courtyard but did not see any of the accused persons there. This witness was declared to be hostile and cross-examined by the ADA.
Abdul Majid petitioner himself appeared as PW.7 and supported the story narrated in the FIR.
Ghulam Muhammad PW.8 identified the handwriting of Fazal Mehdi Shah, Inspector (since died) who had recorded the FIR and conducted investigation into the case. PW.9 Sabir Hussain Dispenser identified the handwriting of Dr. Riasat Ali, Medical Officer to prove the post-mortem report Ex.PL.
The Court also examined Mst. Maqboolan Bibi daughter of the deceased as CW.1. She gave eye witness account of the occurrence and implicated respondents Nos. 1 to 5 as the real culprits.
4. The accused persons denied the charge against them and pleaded to be innocent. In their statements u/s 340 of the Cr.P.C, they stated that murder of the deceased was committed by the complainant and his sons who wanted to grab the property of the deceased.
5. After going through the material on the record, the trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted respondents Nos.1 to 5 vide judgment dated 30.4.92.
6. The petitioner's learned counsel contends that Mst. Fatima Bibi respondent No.5 was a woman of easy virtues and had committed murder of the deceased with the help of the co-accused to grab his property. He further submits that the case was proved through eye witness account furnished by Mst. Maqboolan Bibi CW.1 who had no motive to falsely implicate her on mother. He submits that the trial Court grossly erred in acquitting respondents Nos.1 to 5.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and respondents Nos. 1 to 5 submit that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case, the alleged eye witness never made any statement during the investigation of the case and subsequently came forward with a cooked up story at the instance of Abdul Majid PW.7 who himself had committed murder of the deceased with the help of his sons to grab the property of the deceased. They point out that after the murder of Habib Ullah deceased, the complainant married Mst. Maqboolan Bibi with his son Ghulam Nabi (PW.3). Due to the said relationship Mst. Maqboolan Bibi made the statement as CW.1 and tried to implicate respondents Nos. 1 to 5.
8. I have carefully considered the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the record. Abdul Majid petitioner, real brother of the deceased, had reached the house of his deceased brother immediately after the occurrence. Had Mst. Maqboolan Bibi witnessed the occurrence, she would have immediately informed him about the names of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 who were already known to her. In that eventuality, the complainant must have specifically mentioned the names of the said respondents as the real assailants. However, he merely expressed his on view that Mst. Fatima Bibi had got the deceased killed in consultation with her relatives to grab the property of the deceased. Moreover, Mst. Maqboolan Bibi never made any statement before any investigating officer. In her cross- examination, she admitted, "It is correct that I have never appeared before any I.O. In this case to make my formal statement". It is claimed that she has been constantly agitating the matter before the higher police officers through written applications but no such application or copy of the same has been brought on the record. Of course, she has filed writ petition in this Court in which the trial Court was ordered to examine her as a Court witness. Moreover, this, per se, in not sufficient to rely on her evidence Apart from the above infirmities regarding her evidence, she has contracted marriage with Ghulam Nabi son of the petitioner after the occurrence and appears to have made the statement as CW.1 under the influence of the petitioner/complainant who himself was a suspect in the case. The trial Court has assigned cogent reasons for acquitting respondents Nos.1 to 5 and I do not find any valid reason to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court. The mere fact that another view of the evidence is possible is not sufficient to justify interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of "Feroze Khan Vs. Captain Ghulam Nabi Khan and another (PLD 1966 Supreme Court 424) .The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:- "In cases of revision petitions from acquittal, where the State has not thought fit to challenge the acquittal by an appeal, the Courts would be very slow to interfere, unless non-interference would involve an endorsement of a patently unfair order, or one which leads to miscarriage of justice. If the view taken by the Courts below is reasonably possible on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, then the entertainment of a feeling, that an alternative view of the evidence might have been taken, would not justify the superior Court in setting aside an order of acquittal."
9. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merits in this petition which is dismissed.