' This appeal calls in question the judgment, dated 5-9-1998 of a learned Judicial Magistrate (also exercising powers under section 30, Cr.P.C.), Multan whereby he acquitted respondents Nos.1 to 4 in case F.I.R. No,227 of 1992, dated 5-6-1992 under section 324/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Lohari Gate, Multan. According to the contents of F.I.R. (Exh.P.A./1) Muhammad Mubeen son of Muhammad Ismail laid information before the police on 5-6-1992 at 5-40 p.m. That he is resident of Lohari Gate Umar Farooq Bazar, Multan; that on 3-6-1992 at about 10-00 p.m. While his son Ehsan Elahi was sitting in front of a shop near his house and another son Mussarat had gone to say his prayer when Javaid and Muhammad Irshad sons of Shahab-ud-Din armed with daggers, Muhammad Ishfaq armed with a stick and Shahab-ud-Din armed with an iron rod came to the said place. Shahab-ud-Din declared that Ehsan Elahi would not be spared to live whereupon all the said persons assaulted the said Ehsan Elahi. The first dagger blow was administered by Javaid to the head of Ehsan Elahi; second such blow is attributed to Muhammad Irshad again to the head of said person; third blow by Javaid hitting him on his forehead and; fourth blow was by Muhammad Irshad to the right arm while Javaid inflicted another dagger blow to the right arm of Ehsan Elahi whereafter he fell down unconscious. Ehsan Elahi was so lying unconscious, when Shahab-ud-Din and Ishfaq administered blows with iron rod and stick to the nose and left shoulder, back, hand and arms. This occurrence according to the complainant was witnessed by Mussarat and Munawar Hussain. According to the complainant, motive for the said assault was that Ehsan Elahi had thrown garbage in front of the house of said accused persons a few days ago. The delay in the filing of F.I.R. Was, thus, explained that the accused persons have been begging for apology which plea has not been ultimately acceded to by the complainant and he is making the report. The matter was investigated and a challan was filed in the Court as the accused persons were prima facie found guilty of offence under section 324/34, P.P.C. The learned trial Court framed charge under section 324/337-F(ii)/337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was recorded. The accused were acquitted with the finding that the prosecution had not been able to bring home the charge against them vide the impugned judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned trial Court had misread the evidence on record and that sufficient evidence had been led by the prosecution to prove that the respondents 1 to 4 are guilty as charged without any shadow of doubt.
' Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, on the other hand, argues that his clients were to be presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and prosecution had failed to rebut the said presumption. Further contends that the impugned judgment of acquittal strengthens the said presumption and no case for interference with the acquittal in appeal has been made out.
' Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment.
3. I have gone through the records of the learned trial Court, with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
A perusal of the F.I.R. Exh.P.A. Would show that according to the complainant, the occurrence was witnessed by Mussarat and Munawar Hussain. Regarding Mussarat it is stated that he is the son of complainant and was saying his prayer somewhere; regarding Munawar Hussain I do not see anything in the F.I.R. As to how he was present on the spot. Be that as it may, none of the said two persons have appeared in the witness-box. The evidence on record comprises of the statement of complainant P.W.2, injured Ehsan Elahi P.W.3 and Dr. Abdul Ghafoor P.W.1. P.W.4 is Muhammad Ramzan, A.S.-I. Who recorded F.I.R. Exh.P.A. P.W.5 is Meer Zaman who had stated that initially the investigation was conducted by him. He inspected the spot on 5-6-1992, prepared plan Exh.P.W.5/1 and took possession of the clothes vide a memo. Exh.P.5/2 and then investigation was changed which was completed by Mirza Maqbool. This latter officer was not produced.
4. A perusal of medico-legal Report Exh.P.A./B would show that injuries Nos.1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 are stated to be inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon whereas the remaining injuries with a blunt weapon. The author of this report Dr. Abdul Ghafoor appeared as P.W.1. He has stated that the depth of injuries 1, 2 and 3 was not probed. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 are stated to be inflicted on the head of the injured while injury No,3 above the left eye-brow on the forehead, injury No,9 on right upper arm and injury No,10 on the outer side of elbow. It has not been stated that whether the injuries are on the left or the right elbow. The said failure of the doctor to probe the depth of all the five injuries is explained by the statements of the complainant P.W.2 and the injured P.W.3 who have stated that the injured was not stabbed but the blows were inflicted with the dagger as one hits with a stick.
Now if one were to believe the complainant that respondents Nos.2 and 3 who were statedly armed with daggers had proceeded to attack the injured on the command of their father i,e, respondent No,1 to kill the injured and if they had intended to cause his death, the dagger would have been plunged to injured P.W. Besides the head, appears to be rather an unusual target for a person intending to use a dagger. I also find that whereas the occurrence is stated to have taken place on 3-6-1992 at 9-00 p.m. The report was made to the police in the evening of 5-6-1992 at 5-40 p.m.
There is no plausible explanation for this delay in the F.I.R. Or in the statements of the complainant or the injured. I also find that allegedly blood-stained clothes of the injured were recovered on 10- 6-1992 vide a memo. Exh.P.W.5/2. The garments so recovered comprised of a Chadar and a Salooka. This latter is in fact on under-garment and is normally sleeveless. To my mind in the absence of any explanation as to whether the injured was wearing a shirt at the time of occurrence or not, a doubt does arise in one's mind that the shirt was not produced so as to avoid its examination with reference to corresponding cuts on the sleeves qua injuries Nos.9 and 10. I also find that the P.W.5 has made a deliberate false statement. He states that the plan Exh.P.W.5/1 was prepared on 5-6-1992 and it is so recorded on the said document. However, the F.I.R. States that the police left the police station in pursuant to the report lodged on 5-6-1992 at 5-40 p.m. On 6-6-1992 at 7-30 a.m. It was not possible for the P.W.5 to have prepared the plan on 5-6-1992 when he left the police station for the purpose at 7-30 a.m. On 6-6-1992.
5. I also find that the occurrence is stated to have taken place in the Mohallah where both the parties resided but none turned up to depose in support of the prosecution or otherwise, when it has come in the statement of the complainant and the injured that several people from Mohallah gathered there. There is no explanation on record for giving up Mussarat and Munawar Hussain who are stated to be witnesses to the occurrence. Apart from the reasons, thus, stated above, particularly the medical testimony which cannot be said to be free of doubt and does tend to support the respondents' version that the injuries could have been self-inflicted, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me to disagree with the reasonings given by the learned trial Courts in the impugned judgment for acquitting the accused.
6. The law on the subject by now is well-settled. In our system of jurisprudence, an accused is to be presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and the presumption is further strengthened by the judgment of the trial Court declaring the accused to be not guilty. The initial judgment of acquittal is to be examined on the principle that it is not to be disturbed unless the Appellate Court was to come to conclusion that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same conclusion or that the judgment of acquittal is perverse and the reasons therefor are artificial and ridiculous.
These principles have been reiterated in the cases of Muhammad Iqbal v. Abid Hussain alias Mithu and 6 others 1994 SCM R 1928 and Imran Hussain v. Amar Arshad and 3 others 1997 SCM R 438. I do not find any overwhelming evidence on the record which could have been ignored by the learned trial Court. On the other hand, I find that the only eye-witnesses; one of whom is the son of complainant have not been produced. The Investigating Officer who formed the original opinion of prima facie guilt of respondents has also not been produced.
7. For all the reasons stated above, I do not find any force in this appeal which is dismissed.