' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal which is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 13-4-1994 arises from the facts that in an occurrence which took place on 3-10-1988 at 6.00 a.m. In the Haveli of Noor Ahmad, Mauza Khudian, Chak No, 41, Police Station Serai Mughal, District Kasur, Aneesa aged 4 years, the daughter of Shafique Ahmad (complainant) lost life, while Qasim All P.W. (not produced) and Muhammad Ramzan (respondent) received injuries. Muhammad Ramzan alongwith five others was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian, under section 302/149, P.P.C. For the murder of Aneesa and under section 307/149 for murderous assault on Qasim Ali, who, vide judgment dated 2-3-1991, while acquitting five co-accused, convicted Muhammad Ramzan respondent under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default three months S.I. Appeal filed by the respondent No, 1 against his conviction and sentence was allowed and he was acquitted on 13-4-1994. Hence this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
2. It is a case of two versions. According to the prosecution, at the eventful time, Shafique Ahmad (complainant) and Qasim Ali (not produced) were present in the Haveli of Noor Ahmad. Mst.
Surrayya Anjum (P.W. 5), the wife of the complainant went to the nearby plot to throw the cattle dung there. Mst. Nooran Bibi, the acquitted accused was present there. She asked Mst. Surrayya Anjum not to throw the cattle dung in the plot. This led to a quarrel between them. Mst. Nooran Bibi left that place abusing Mst. Surrayya Anjum. Mst. Surrayya Anjum came back to the Haveli and lifted her daughter Aneesa aged 4 years on her left shoulder. Shortly thereafter, Muhammad Ramzan respondent, Muhammad Sadiq and Abdur Razzaq carrying guns in their hands, Sardar Ali and Muhammad Hussain armed with Sotas and Mst. Nooran Bibi empty handed, reached the Haveli. On the Lalkara raised by Mst. Nooran Bibi, Muhammad Ramzan respondent fired shot at Mst.
Surrayya Anjum which hit Aneesa, resulting in her instantaneous death. Sardar All and Muhammad Hussain gave Sota blows to Qasim Ali P.W. Muhammad Sadiq and Abdur Razzaq co-accused continued firing. The respondent and the co-accused then ran away taking their weapons with them.
3. According to the counter-version given by Muhammad Ramzan respondent, at the time of occurrence he (Muhammad Ramzan) was present in the disputed plot when Yasin and Noor Ahmad P.Ws., Hashim Ali and Qasim Ali armed with guns, Shafique Ahmed (complainant) armed with revolver, Qasim Mahmood armed with .7 m.m. Rifle, Muhammad Shafi, Hassan Ahmad and Muhammad Sadiq carrying Sotas in their hands launched attack on him and caused him injuries.
Leaving behind the gun of Anwar Dogar who was inimical to the petitioner's family, the assailants went away. A rumour had spread in the village that Muhammad Ramzan had been killed. After a little while, the complainant party proclaimed that Aneesa had been killed.
4. Medical evidence shows that Mst. Aneesa had received fire-arm injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Qasim Ali P.W. (who unfortunately died before his evidence could be recorded) had received four simple injuries caused with blunt weapon.
Muhammad Ramzan (respondent) received three injuries out of which one was caused by fire- arm and the rest with blunt weapon.
5. Muhammad Ramzan respondent was arrested on 23-10-1988. .12 Bore gun (Exh. P.1) was recovered on his pointation from his house on 6-11-1988. Since no empty was recovered from the spot, the recovery of the gun was/is of no consequence.
6. To prove its case prosecution produced fourteen witnesses. Muhammad Shafi (P.W. 2) uncle of the deceased, Shafique Ahmad (P.W. 4) father of the deceased, and Surrayya Anjum (P.W. 5) mother of the deceased, are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They have supported the prosecution version. The fate of the case depends upon the question of credibility of the three eye- witnesses. The rest of the evidence is almost of formal nature.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the three eyewitnesses are absolutely dependable witnesses; that their presence on the spot was natural; that they have no enmity against the respondent to involve him falsely in the case; that the defence version is not only false but there is also no reasonable possibility of the same being true and that the learned High Court has acquitted the respondent without sound and cogent reasons.
8. Keeping in view the well-settled principles for the appreciation of appeal against acquittal, enunciated by the Supreme Court, we have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We do not feel persuaded to agree with him. We find that the learned High. Court carefully examined the evidence on record and circumstances appearing in the case, and has given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by it that the charge against the respondent could not be proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.
Operative part of the judgment is reproduced advantageously hereunder:-- "As already indicated the investigator concluded that the appellant family were in possession, the complainant family indulged in firing and tried to take possession and committed aggression. How the gun was left at the spot, is not explained. Ramzan appellant was injured with fire-arm and blunt weapon and the injuries on his person have not been explained. The complainant is employed in Sugar Mills while his wife is a school teacher. There is no evidence that they were having any cattle during the days of occurrence which were tethered in the Haveli of occurrence adjacent to the disputed plot. Yasin who had obtained the stay order and claimed possession has not been produced at the trial. Similarly, Noor Ahmed in whose Haveli the occurrence allegedly took place has also not been produced and rather given up. If the appellant and two of his other companions namely, Muhammad Sadiq and Abdur Razzak accused were carrying fire-arms there was no question that the appellant would have been injured with blunt weapon or the witnesses including Mst. Surrayya Anjum allowed to go without any injuries, particularly with fire arm. The eye- witnesses cannot be believed unless there is corroboration and no such corroboration is forthcoming on the record."
9. We find that the grounds on which the learned High Court has acquitted the respondent are supportable from the evidence on record. The judgment of acquittal is not perverse. The reasons given by the learned High Court are neither artificial nor ridiculous. It is not possible to hold that the conclusion recorded by the High Court was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same. The eye-witnesses have suppressed the injuries of the respondent. The trial Court had acquitted the five co-accused including Sardar All and Muhammad Hussain who, according to the eyewitnesses, had inflicted injuries to Qasim Ali P.W. The complainant did not file any revision against the acquittal of five co-accused, in the High Court. There can be no two opinions that once an accused person is acquitted of the charge by a Court of competent jurisdiction then very strong and exceptional grounds would be required for interference with the same which are wanting in this case.
10. For all these reasons, we do not see any compelling reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.