' RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID, J.--- This is an appeal under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. Against the judgment, dated 19-10-1998 passed by Mehar Ghulam Farid Khan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar whereby he acquitted Khushi Muhammad accused from the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. For an occurrence, which took place on 18-6-1997 at about 10-00 a.m. In the shop of one Inayat Ullah, Tractor Dealer wherein one Abdul Ghaffar was done to death with firing. The occurrence was seen by P.W.7 i,e, Ahmad Nawaz complainant/appellant and Maula Dad, P.W.8 and another witness Muhammad Tariq (P.W. Not produced). The deceased alongwith aforesaid witnesses was sitting on the Southern Thara of the shop when the absconding accused Abdul Sattar armed with .222 rifle, Wali Muhammad initially named as an accused with .12 bore gun entered the shop and both of them raised Lalkara that the deceased should be taught a lesson for appearing as a witness in a murder case and thereupon aforesaid Wali Muhammad fired a shot from his gun hitting Abdul Ghaffar on the left upper arm who stood up on receiving the fire and thereafter, Abdul Sattar absconding accused made fire from his rifle hitting on his right ear piercing his skull and making exit from left pinna. The complainant and the eyewitnesses abovenamed were allegedly empty-handed. They could not do anything to save the deceased and the accused managed to escape alongwith their weapons. The deceased died on the spot. The motive about the occurrence was that about 4 years prior to this murder Aziz Ullah a close friend of the deceased Abdul Ghaffar was killed and the deceased appeared as a prosecution witness in the aforesaid case being an eye-witness. The aforesaid case resulted into conviction whereupon the present accused nursed grudge against aforesaid Abdul Ghaffar and in pursuance of common intention finished him for ever.
2. The report about the occurrence was lodged by Ahmad Nawaz P.W.7 after leaving Maula Dad P.W.8 and Muhammad Tariq (P.W. Not produced) near the dead body. The F.I.R. Was recorded at Police Station, Kalur Kot vide statement Exh.P.F. Made before Haq Nawaz P.W.9. The F.I.R. Was read over to the complainant, who signed the same as a token of its correctness. Haq Nawaz, A.S.-I.
Thereupon proceeded to the place of occurrence inspected the dead body of the deceased Abdul Ghaffar prepared injury statement Exh.P.C./1, inquest report Exh.P.C. And handed over the dead body to Muhammad Asghar F.C. P.W.3 for escorting it to mortuary for autopsy. After returning to the spot, from the police station, the complainant made a supplementary statement on the same day wherein he stated that through an inadvertence he had given name of Wali Muhammad accused in place of Khushi Muhammad, who in fact had opened fire on the deceased. The said Khushi Muhammad and Wali Muhammad are brothers. On the aforesaid supplementary statement Khushi Muhammad present respondent was involved as an accused in the case in place of Wali Muhammad, who had obtained pre-arrest bail which remained pending till September, 1997. The other accused absconded which necessitated separation of his case from the present respondent in view of the provisions contained in section 512, Cr.P.C. And the latter was accordingly tried and acquitted.
3. The learned trial Court after completing the trial and hearing both sides came to the conclusion that the case against the present respondent was highly doubtful as two eye-witnesses namely Ahmad Nawaz and Maula Dad were not only related to each other but were also related to the deceased closely. In addition to that they were inimical to the accused as the parties were involved in blood feuds resulting into pendency of criminal case against each other. The learned trial Court also came to the conclusion that since there was no independent evidence to support the aforesaid witnesses, therefore, it was highly risky to base conviction against the respondent/ accused who was subsequently, involved in the case through a supplementary statement recorded on the spot which would not exclude the possibility of mutual consultation and cooking up a story whereby Wali Muhammad was given a clean chit and the present accused was roped in. It was also found by the learned trial judge that in the absence of independent witnesses from the public, particularly when the occurrence had taken place in broad daylight and in a public place like a shop, it was not impossible for the prosecution to bring forth disinterested witnesses.
The learned trial Judge also disbelieved the ocular account of occurrence on the ground that it made material contradictions in respect of the presence of the P.Ws. On the spot for purchasing a tractor. In this regard, Ahmad Nawaz P.W.7 stated that a day prior to the occurrence the matter was settled with the Tractor Dealer whereas according to Maula Dad P.W.8, the negotiations were yet to be finalised on the day of occurrence. It was also stated that the police record such as inquest report showed that actual offender was Wali Muhammad whose name was written therein instead of Khushi Muhammad. Likewise the site plan and other documents such as recovery memo. Etc. Were left blank to show the name of the accused therein as it could be conveniently filled in later according to the story to be invented. The recovery of gun P.3 from the accused/respondent was considered to be of no legal value as the same was never sent to Forensic Laboratory for its comparison.
4. Lastly it was observed that medical evidence also made the time of the occurrence doubtful which according to the prosecution was 10-00 a.m. Although the occurrence may have taken place somewhere during night as contended by the accused/respondent.
5. The learned trial Court after taking into account the foregoing facts came to an irresistible conclusion that prosecution case was highly doubtful and as such after given the benefit of doubt the accused/respondent was acquitted.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at some length. He has contended that prosecution had come up with clean hands and its bona fide would be clear from the fact that though the name of Wali Muhammad was recorded as one of the accused in the F.I.R., but when the complainant side realised its mistake that Wali Muhammad was not an accused, it promptly corrected the same by citing the name of real culprit i,e, Khushi uhammad/respondent. Had the complainant side acted mala fide they would have added the name of other brother i,e, Khushi Muhammad/respondent alongwith Wali Muhammad instead of leaving the former and substituting the latter for him. It was, therefore, submitted that in fact the complainant side had come up with a true and clear story which was not pregnant with any sort of intrinsic doubt and as such the learned trial Court fell in error to accept an artificial type of doubt to acquit the accused/respondent. Likewise it was submitted that it is true that enmity is a double-edged weapon which may be utilised to trap the enemy but on the other hand it is also a forceful lever to involve the correct persons and substitution would be a rare phenomenon particularly when the deceased was a close relative of the complainant side. It was, therefore, contended that mere fact that there was enmity between two sides would not take away the evidentiary value of the eye- witnesses, who had no interest but to see that actual culprit should be brought to book. The recovery of weapon of offence from the accused/respondent was also allegedly a good piece of evidence to support the eye-witnesses. The mere fact that the shopkeeper of the shop where the occurrence had taken place did not appear in the case would be of no consequence because he was not present in the shop at that time. In this regard, it was also contended that though it was a public place but mere fact that nobody had come forward to become a witness could be well- understood from the fact that people are/generally shy to poke their nose in the blood of others. In such a situation, presence of the independent and disinterested witnesses is not only a far cry but also almost impracticable. The presence of fire-arm injuries on the person of the deceased would show that he was done to death with fires made from the fire-arm and as such would corroborate the eye-witnesses which clearly deposed that the deceased was murdered by the respondent/accused and his absconding accused by making fires at him.
7. In the light of above arguments, it was finally urged that acquittal order was bad in the eye of law and ought to be set aside.
8. We have considered the foregoing points and find that the learned trial Judge had evaluated the evidence brought on record in accordance with the well-known principle of criminal administration of justice by advancing forceful reasons for disbelieving the evidence of motive, ocular account of occurrence, contradiction between the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence and above all the substitution of present respondent for one named accused in the F.I.R. Namely Wali Muhammad.
These facts are quite ostensible from the evidence brought on record. It is now well-settled law that Courts should be slow to interfere with the judgments of acquittal unless it is felt that gross injustice had been done in the administration of criminal justice or that the judgment of the trial Court was perverse, completely illegal and on perusal of evidence no other conclusion could be made except that the accused was guilty or there had been complete misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice. Reference with advantage may be made to Yar Muhammad and 3 others v.
The State reported as 1992 SCM R 96. Likewise it was held in The State v. Muhammad Sharif and others reported as 1995 SCM R 635 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) that the Court would not interfere with the acquittal merely because on reappraisal of the evidence it comes to the conclusion different from that of the Court acquitting the accused provided both the conclusions are reasonably possible.
9. Keeping the foregoing test in view it is clear that the respondent/accused was not named in the F.I.R. As an accused and was substituted later on when the main accused i,e, Wali Muhammad obtained pre-arrest hail from the Court of _ competent jurisdiction in which the prosecution did not appear to say that in fact he was innocent. Likewise the inimical and interested evidence examined at the trial was not corroborated by an independent evidence. Recovery of weapon of offence was also not of any use as the same was never sent to Forensic Laboratory for test. The mere fact that there were fire-arm injuries on the person of the deceased would in no way lead to an inference that the medical evidence was consistent with the ocular account of occurrence. The learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent/accused on the above facts and as such there is no ground for interference in this appeal. The same is dismissed.