' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal directed against judgment of acquittal passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore on 3-10-1994, arises from the facts that in the occurrence which took place on 20-4-1989 in the area of Shadia at a distance of five miles from Police Station Wan Bachman, District Mianwali, Fateh Sher and seven others respondents allegedly committed the double murder of Muhammad Sher and his father Barkhurdar and launched murderous assault on Muhammad Zaman P.W.12 by causing them injuries with fire-arms, in furtherance of their common object in presence of Abdur Rehman P.W.11 and Muhammad Zaman P.W.12 and two given rp P.Ws. Namely All Muhammad and Haibat Khan, on account of suspicion of the illicit relations of Muhammad She deceased with Mst. Kausar daughter of Muhammad She Rajaykhel son of Muhammad accused (respondent No, 6) and a close relative of the remaining respondents. First report of this occurrence was lodged the same day at 7-30 p.m. At Police Station by Abdur Rehman P.W.11, son-in-law of Barklturdar deceased and was recorded by Abdur Razzaq S.I. P.W.15.
2. According to the prosecution, Barkhurdar and Muhammad She were returning to their village at the eventful time. Muhammad She was going a few Karams ahead of his father. When they reached near the wheat crop of All Ahmed, the respondents namely Ghulam Abbas armed with gun, Fateh Sher armed with rifle and Alam Khan armed with pistol emerged from the Northern side of the wheat crop, whereas Muhammad Sher, Ghulam Muhammad son of Zaman, Zulfiqar, Muhammad Azam, all armed with guns, Ghulam Muhammad son of All Ahmed armed with pistol were present on the Southern side of the wheat crop. On the Lalkara raised by Ghulam Abbas, respondent, that Muhammad Sher should not escape, Fateh Sher fired shot hitting on the right ear of Muhammad She deceased. Ghulani Abbas fired shot hitting on the right thigh of Muhammad Sher deceased. Alam Khan fired shot hitting in the abdomen of Muhammad Sher who as result of the injuries fell down. Barkhurdar stepped forward to save his son and simultaneously fired from his rifle hitting the leg of Muhammad Azam accused/respondent. Muhammad Azam fired in return hitting left eye of Barkhurdar. Ghulam Muhammad and All Ahmed accused respondents fired , shots which hit the forearm and the abdomen of Barkhurdar. Ghulam Muhammad son of Zaman and Zulfiqr continued firing in the air and raising Lalkaras. Muhammad Zaman P.W.12 was injured by the shot fired by Fateh She accused respondent. Muhammad She and Barkhurdar succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
3. Dr. Mehr Khan P.W.1 examined Muhammad Zaman P.W.12 and found one fire-arm wound on his left chest. The injury was caused by fire-arm and was grievous in nature. On the same day, he examined Muhammad Azam accused and found four entry wounds of fire-arm on different parts of his right leg. He also found two exit wounds. All the injuries were caused by fire-arm. Some of the injuries of Muhammad Azam were also found grievous.
' He also conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Sher on 21-4-1989 at 9-00 a.m. And found seven fire-arm injuries on his person. Nine pellets were recovered from the dead body. In his opinion, the cause of death was hemorrhage and neurogenic shock caused by three fire-arm injuries found on the right eye, right chest and abdomen.
' On the same day, he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Barkhurdar at 8- 00 a.m. And found three wounds of entry and two wounds of exit cause by fire-arm on the dead body. In his opinion, death was caused due to fire-arm injuries found near the left eye of the deceased which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In cross- examination, he stated that the injury of Muhammad Zaman P.W. Was the result of pellet. He further stated that the pellet was present in the body.
4. Police took into possession one licensed gun P.9/PP of Barkhurdar deceased from the place of occurrence but no empty could be recovered from there.
5. Fateh Sher and Ghulam Abbas were arrested on 27-4-1989. Ghulam Muhammad son of All Ahmed was arrested on 3-5-1989. Alam Khan, Muhammad Sher, Ghulam Muhammad son of Zaman and Zulfiqar were arrested on 5-5-1989 and Muhammad Azam was arrested on 14-5-1989.
On 27-41989, Ghulam Abbas got recovered gun P.10. Fateh Sher got recovered rifle P.12 on 30-4- 1989. Ghulam Muhammad son or All Ahmed got recovered pistol P.14 on 8-5-1989. Muhammad Azam got recovered gun P.16 on 14-5-1989 and Zulfiqar got recovered gun P.8 on 19-5-1989. Since no empty was recovered from the spot, mere recovery of fire-arms from the respondents is of no consequence.
6. To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. Abdul Rahman P.W.11 and Muhammad Zaman P.W.12 have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They claim to have seen the respondents on the spot at the time of occurrence and Fateh Sher, Ghulam Abbas, Alam Khan causing fire-arm injuries to Muhammad Sher deceased and Muhammad Azam Ghulam Muhammad son of Ali Ahmed causing fire-arm injuries to Barkhurdar, and Fateh Sher causing fire- arm injuries to Muhammad Zaman P.W. They further stated that Ghulam Muharanzad son of Zaman and Zulfiqar had also been firing during the occurrence. 'Motive has been supported by Abdur Rehman P.W.11. Abdur Rehman P.W.11 and Abdur Razzaq SI P.W.15 have supported the recoveries from the spot'aind from the respondents as stated above. Dr. Mehr Khan P.W.1 has proved the medico-legal reports relating to the injuries of Muhammad Zaman PM.- and Muhammad Azeem accused and the post-mortem examination reports of the two deceased. Rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
7. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the respondents denied incriminating evidence and the circumstances appearing in evidence against them. While raising the plea of self-defense of person, Muhammad Azam in answer to question No,9 had stated:-- "On the day of occurrence at about 7 pm after Iftari Wala I along with Muhammad Amir and Said Amir relatives were coming towards our Dera from Muhammad Shah Wala on reaching near the place of occurrence both the deceased persons who were armed with fire-arms fired towards us and injured me, my companions in self-defence fired hitting the deceased persons. The witnesses were not there and there was a general firing in the village and a stray pellet hit Muhammad Zaman P.W. Both the deceased persons were concealing themselves in the wheat crop and the story of my being presekt at the Dera of Sarfraz is baselsess. The police in collusion with the complainant party prepared the story of camel and fodder to screen the aggression of the complainant party."
' The respondents neither produced evidence in defence nor made statement on oath in disproof of the charge against them.
8. Believing the prosecution evidence and rejecting the plea of self-defence raised by Muhammad Azam accused, the trial Court convicted the respondents under section 302/149, P.P.C. And sentenced Fateh Sher, Ghulam Abbas, Ghulam Muhammad son of All Ahmed, Muhammad Alam, Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Sher to death and the remaining two respondents namely Ghulam Muhammad son of Zaman and Zulfiqar to imprisonment for life on two counts. A fine of Rs,10,000 each on two counts or in default one year R.I. Each on two counts was imposed on each accused. Ghulam Abbas accused was also convicted under section 307, P.P.C. And sentenced to 5 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default 6 months' R.I. All the accused were further convicted under section 148, P.P.C. And sentenced to two years' R.I. Each.
' On appeal filed by the respondents, Lahore High Court, Lahore vide impugned judgment/order has acquitted all the accused/respondents. Hence this petition against acquittal of the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the respondents; that the two eyewitnesses are absolutely dependable; that they had no enmity against the respondents to involve them falsely in the case; that Muhammad Zaman being injured, his presence on the spot at the time of occurrence is very much established; and that the High Court has failed to give convincing reasons for acquitting the accused.
10. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties with care. We do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. We find that the fate of the case hinges upon the question of the credibility of the two eye-witnesses whose testimony has been disbelieved by the High Court. The eye-witnesses, who are related to the deceased, have implicated as many as eight persons in this case who are closely inter-related. The High Court was of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the motive alleged by it. The High Court also held that the recovery of fire-arms at the instance of the respondents was of no consequence, in that no empty was secured from the place of occurrence. The High Court further observed that the prosecution story at the initial stage that Fateh She had injured Muhammad Zaman P.W. By firing from his rifle was improved upon by the eye-witnesses in order to bring it in conformity with the medical evidence. While discussing the contradiction in the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, the High Court observed:-- "As far as medical evidence is concerned, it contradicts the prosecution story as disclosed in the F.I.R. And in the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Prosecution story at the initial stage was that Fateh Sher fired his rifle which hit Muhammad Zaman, P.W.12.
Subsequently, Dr. Mehr Khan, M.O., in cross-examination stated that the injury to Muhammad Zaman, P.W. Was the result of pellet, which was seen in X-ray as well. The pellet was still present in the body. Since the prosecution assertion was that he was fired at by Fateh Sher with rifle, but the doctor found a pellet in the injury, therefore, the medical evidence instead of corroborating the ocular account, contradicts it."
11. Discussing the ocular evidence, the High Court has declined to place implicit trust upon the eye- witnesses on the grounds that they were interested witnesses; the motive narrated by them was not correct and the conduct of the eye-witnesses of improving upon their earlier statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. In order to bring their evidence in conformity with the medical evidence had adversely affected their credibility. After pointing out more than one infirmity in the ocular evidence, the High Court was of the view that corroboration of the ocular evidence qua each accused was very much needed.
12. . On our independent examination and assessment of the evidence on record we famed that the reasons given by the High Court for disbelieving motive and the ocular evidence are supportable from the evidence on record. The reasons are neither ridiculous nor artificial. The impugned judgment is not a perverse judgment. It' cannot be said that the view taken by the High Court of the evidence on record could not be conceived by any reasonable and prudent person. In the F.I.R. And statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. The eye-witnesses had claimed to have seen Fateh Sher firing from rifle which hit Muhammad Zaman P.W. Since the injury of Muhammad Zaman was caused by pellet and not by bullet, the eye-witnesses, while making a dishonest departure from their previous statements, substituted Ghulam Abbas-in place of Fateh Sher and also changed the weapon from rifle to a gun. It is thus very much clear that the eye-witnesses have given evidence with a motive other than that of telling the truth, so they are basically dishonest witnesses. The rule of prudence requires independent corroboration of their statements qua each accused which is not available.
13. Consequently, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. .