' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 10-2-1990 allowing the appeal of the accused-respondents and acquitting them by setting aside their convictions and sentences recorded/passed by the trial Court under sections 302/34, P.P.C. And 379/34, P.P.C.
2. Prosecution case as set up at the trial was that on 24-3-1985 at 6-00 a.m., Sultan Ahmed complainant P.W.7, Dost Muhammad P.W.11, Muhammad Saeed and Mian Muhammad P.Ws. (not produced) were proceeding towards the `Dera' of Noor Muhammad deceased to attend the Court.
When they were at a distance of two Killas from their `Dera', they saw Ghulam Raza, Ghulam Abbas respondents herein and their co-accused Asmat Ullah, Shera, Ata Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam all armed with .12 bore guns giving beating to Muhammad Safdar P.W. (not produced) with the butt ends of their guns and Allah Din P.W. (not produced) running away for saving his life. After injuring Muhammad Safdar P.W., the accused ran towards the `Dera' of Noor Muhammad deceased. On reaching there, Asma t Ullah and Shera accused climbed the roof of the 'Kotha' of Noor Muhammad deceased, Ghulam Raza accused lay in the 'Khal' on the back of the `Dera', Muhammad Aslam and Ghulam Abbas accused took their positions under the banana plants and Ata Muhammad accused also sat in the 'Khal'. Asmat Ullah accused then raised 'Lalkara', whereupon Noor Muhammad deceased came out of his 'Kotha'. Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Aslam accused fired gun shots at him which hit him on his chest. Then Shera accused fired a gun shot at him (Noor Muhammad deceased) which hit him on the left side of his chest. Noor Muhammad deceased fired in his self-defence. Asmat Ullah accused also fired a gun shot at Noor Muhammad deceased which hit him on the left side of his chest whereupon he fell down and died at the spot.
' On hearing the alarm, Muhammad Ramzan deceased ran to the `Dera' of Noor Muhammad deceased, when Ghulam Raza respondent fired at him which shot hit his right thigh and he fell down and died. Thereafter, Ata Muhammad and other accused fired ineffectively. The accused while leaving the spot carried away the gun of Allah Din.
3. After the occurrence, Sultan Ahmed P.W. 7 lodged the F.I.R. With the police which was recorded by Khizar Hayat Inspector P.W.
13. The Inspector then proceeded to the spot where, after preparing the necessary papers, he sent the dead bodies of Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Ramzan deceased to the hospital for post- mortem examination and also sent Muhammad Safdar P.W. For medical examination. The inspector collected the blood-stained earth from the spot where the two deceased had been injured. He also recovered .12 bore crime empties Exhs. P12/1-5, P13/1-2, P14/1-3, P15/1-2, P16/1-3 and P17/1-2 from various places, which were taken into possession.
4. Doctor Mazhar Rashid P.W.6 conducted the post-mortem examination on Noor Muhammad deceased and found 8 fire-arm wounds of entry 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. In an area of 10 c.m. x 3 c.m. On the left clavical, two fire-arm wounds of entry 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. Each in an area of 1-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. On the front of middle left chest, four fire-arm wounds of exit 1-1/4 c.m. x 1-1/4 c.m. In an area of 10 c.m. x 1- 1/2 c.m. On the back of left side of chest, a laceration 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Below the left clavical and three abrasions in an area of 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. On front of forehead on the left side. The fire-arm injuries near the left clavical were found to be fatal.
' On the same day, Doctor Mazhar Rashid conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Ramzan deceased and found nine fire-arm wounds of entry 1 c.m. x 1 c.m.
Each in an area of 10 c.m. x 10 c.m. On the back upper part of right thigh and lower right buttock and a large lacerated wound 3-1/2 c.m. x 3-1/2 c.m. Bone deep on front or right thigh. The fire-arm injury was found to be fatal.
' The same doctor examined Muhammad Safdar injured P.W. And found a contused swelling 5 c.m. x 4 c.m. On the back of left hand and a contusion 10 c.m. x 4 c.m. On front outer side of left thigh, both of which injuries were simple.
5. Khizar Hayat Inspector P.W. 13 arrested Muhammad Aslam accused on 29-3-1985. Abdul Qadir Inspector P.W. 10 who took over investigation from Khizar Hayat Inspector arrested Asmat Ullah, Shera and Ata Muhammad accused on 3-4-1985.
' Ghulam Raza and Ghulam Abbas respondents were arrested by Muhammad Rashid Ahmed Inspector/SHO (C.W.1) on 16-4-1985. Both of them led to the recovery of guns Exh. P-19 and P-20 on 24-4-1985.
' A carbine was recovered from Ata Muhammad accused and a gun from Shera accused.
6. Ghulam Raza and Ghulam Abbas respondents alongwith their co-accused Asmat Ullah, Shera, Ata Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam were put on trial in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha under section 302/307/379/149/148, P.P.C. For committing the murders of Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Ramzan deceased, for murderous assault on Safdar P.W. And for taking away the licensed gun of Allah Din P.W.
7. To prove its case, prosecution relied upon the ocular testimony of the complainants Sultan Ahmed P.W.7 and Dost Muhammad P.W.11, the evidence of motive and the medical evidence as also the recoveries of crime weapons together with the report of fire-arms expert Exh. PBB. Learned trial Court accepted the motive and the presence of the two eye-witnesses at the spot and their having seen the occurrence but held that as both of them were interested and hostile witnesses, their evidence required corroboration qua each of the accused. The learned Judge then appraised the evidence on the record and found that there was no corroboration forthcoming against Aslam, Asmat Ullah, Shera and Ata Muhammad accused who were accordingly acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. Corroboration as against the accused-respondents was, however, found from the recoveries of the guns at their instance which as per the report of the fire-arms expert matched with some of the crime empties recovered from the spot. Support was also sought to be drawn from the medical evidence and from the fact that the name of Ghulam Raza respondent was mentioned in Exh. PCC. Learned trial Court accordingly convicted both the respondents under section 302/34, P.P.C. For the double murder of the two deceased, sentenced Ghulam Abbas respondent to life imprisonment and awarded death penalty to Ghulam Raza respondent. They were also convicted under section 379/34 for taking away the licensed gun of Allah Din and sentenced to one year R.I. Each. Fine too was imposed on them for both the offences.
8. On appeal filed by the two convicts, learned Judges of the High Court held that the motive was not duly proved as the document Exh.PCC (which is an application for correction of Khasra Girdawari filed by the complainant party against some of the accused persons) had not been brought on record in accordance with law. The learned Judges further held that the eye-witnesses who were inimical to the accused had failed to furnish any plausible explanation for their presence at the spot as they were not the residents of the locality and they were unable to point out the Killa number and square number of the land where they had their respective 'Deras'. It was observed by the learned Judges that in order to record conviction on a capital charge, there should be a very strong corroboration of hostile witnesses which was lacking in the present case. It was noted by the learned Judges that the number and nature of injuries given by the eye-witnesses was belied by the medical evidence. In this connection, the learned Judges observed that according to the ocular version, Noor Muhammad deceased received four gun shots fired by four of the accused but the medical evidence showed that the fire-arm injuries were the result of one shot only. It was also noticed by the learned Judges that according to eye-witness account, gun shots were fired from some distance while according to the medical evidence, Noor Muhammad received injuries from a close range as there was blackening around each wound. Evidence regarding the recoveries of crime weapons/empties was also held to be doubtful and thus of no use to the prosecution. The learned Judges observed in this behalf that the factum of the crime empties lying on the spot was not mentioned in the F.I.R. And their recovery too was not proved through an independent witness and that the recovery of the guns at the instance of the respondents was also not free from doubt. It was further noted that the crime empties remained in the police custody for considerable time which fact also made the prosecution case further doubtful. For all these reasons, the learned Judges formed the view that the case against the accused-respondents was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and they were accordingly acquitted giving them benefit of doubt.
9. Learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal contended that the learned Judges of the High Court erroneously rejected the evidence of motive. It was submitted that apart from the document Exh.PCC, the motive was even otherwise proved by the testimony of the two eye- witnesses and the admitted enmity between the parties. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the High Court proceeded on incorrect premises in holding that the two eye- witnesses were not the residents of the locality. This finding, according to the learned counsel, was based on misreading of evidence. Learned counsel also assailed the findings regarding the crime empties and submitted that it is in evidence that the empties were received in the Forensic Science Laboratory on 22-4-1985 while the guns were recovered from the respondents on 24-4-1985. The ocular evidence was thus sufficiently corroborated. In the submission of the learned counsel, case against the accused respondents is proved beyond any shadow of doubt and the High Court committed grave error in acquitting them.
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have not felt persuaded to agree with him. The observation of the learned Judges of the High Court regarding the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive against the accused persons was evidently made in the context of the document Exh.PCC which it was held was not brought on the record in accordance with law and, therefore, could not be read in evidence. The learned Judges were otherwise quite cognizant of the enmity between the parties which is manifest from their observation, "the enmity between the complainant party and the accused party is established on record, in view of the previous litigation". The learned Judges also gave good reasons for doubting the presence of the eye-witnesses on the spot at the relevant time. The learned Judges observed that " they are not the residents of the locality. It appears that they have coined this pretext of hearing of the case, pending before the Revenue Officer, to make themselves present at the time of occurrence, as they were not party to the case. There is no proof on the record to show, they resided near the place of occurrence. The defence has brought on the file, sufficient material to demonstrate that these so-called eye-witnesses are not the residents of the vicinity as per their own admissions, as they could not point out the square in Killa number where they had their Dera".
This finding/observation is supported by the evidence on record. Even otherwise, since both the eye-witnesses were admittedly interested and hostile and they were also not believed by the trial Court qua four other accused in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the High Court held and rightly so that their testimony required strong corroboration which, it was further observed, was lacking in the present case. According to the learned Judges, the evidence of recoveries was not trustworthy and the medical evidence belied the ocular version. We find that the view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable based as it is on proper appraisal of the evidence on record. The crime empties were stated to have been recovered on the day of the occurrence but they were kept in the police custody for almost a month and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory only after the accused-respondents were arrested. In the circumstances, the learned Judges of the High Court rightly observed that "the possibility of fabrication of the evidence of wedding the crime empties with the guns recovered from the appellants cannot, be ruled out". In our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court is based on sound and cogent reasons and the acquittal of the accused-respondents is in keeping with the principles governing the safe administration of criminal justice. Needless to observe that a judgment of acquittal is not to be interfered with unless it is found to be preverse, founded on artificial reasons. The judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any such infirmity and, therefore, it does not warrant any interference by this Court.
11. Upshot of the above discussion is that we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with the direction that the respondents stand discharged of the bonds, if any, furnished by them.