' SHEIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J.--- Briefly stated the prosecution story as contained in the written complaint Exh.P.G. Lodged at the instance of Abdul Razzaq, complainant (P.W.8) is that Muhammad Idrees accused/respondent was a co-sharer in Noshahi Medical Store alongwith Mst. Rashidan Bibi. However, about two years ago Mst. Rashidan Bibi had turned Muhammad Idrees out from the business concern on account of his corruption. Muhammad Idrees- suspected that he had been turned by Mst. Rashidan Bibi at the instance of Khyzer Hayat. He accordingly nurtured a grudge against Khyzer Hayat. On 23-11-1994 Abdul Razzaq, complainant (P.W.8) alongwith Safdar Ali (not produced) went to see his brother Khyzer Hayat son of Ashiq Ali at Noshahi Medical Store, Madina Chowk Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Faisalabad. They found that Muhammad Idrees son of Ghulam Rasool accused/respondent was exchanging hot words with Khyzer Hayat. Rashid Mahmood son of Muhammad Aslam tried to intervene upon which Muhammad Idrees suddenly brought out a pistol and fired a straight shot upon Khyzer Hayat which hit him at the right side of his chest. Muhammad Idrees repeated his second fire shot upon Khyzer Hayat but as Khyzer Hayat had fallen by that time so it did not hit him (Khyzer Hayat). Later on, complainant and others tried to apprehend Muhammad Idrees upon which he issued threats of dire consequences and making aerial firing succeeded in decamping himself from there. The occurrence was witnessed by the complainant as well as Safdar Ali and Rashid Mahmood who thereafter removed the injured to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad.
2. Inayat Ullah Khan, S.-I. (P.W.11) was present at Liaquat Chowk on 24-11-1994 when at about 4-00 p.m. Abdul Razzaq, complainant appeared before him and produced a written complaint Exh.P.G.
Which he forwarded to the Police Station for formal registration of the case. He thereafter reached the place of occurrence, inspected the same, secured the blood-stained earth, secured two empties of .30 bore (P.3/1-2) and made a sealed parcel of the same. Both the parcels were secured vide memo. Exh.P.J. He prepared a rough site plan of the place of occurrence Exh.P.L. And thereafter made for Allied Hospital, Faisalabad where the injured Khizer Hayat was lying. He submitted applications Exh.P.M., Exh.P.M./1, Exh.P.M./2, Exh.P.M./3, Exh.P.M./4 and Exh.P.M./5 before the Medical Officer on 24-11-1994, 28-11-1994, 1-12-1994 7-12-1994, 14-12-1994 and 18-12-1994 respectively to obtain the opinion of the Medical Officer if the injured was fit to make a statement, however, it was reported that the injured was not fit to make a statement and consequently he could not record the statement of Khyzer Hayat. On 24-11-1994 complainant produced blood-stained shirt (P.2) of Khyzer Hayat which he secured vide memo. Exh.P.H. He arrested the accused on 14-12-1994 who on 20-12-1994 led to the recovery of the pistol .30 bore (P.4) alongwith three live bullets Exh.P.5/1-3 which he secured vide memo. Exh.P.A. On 24-12-1994 he was informed by Rashid Mahmood P.W.
Regarding the death of Khyzer Hayat; consequently, he amended the offence into 302, P.P.C. He accordingly prepared the Inquest Report Exh.P.F. And handed over the dead body to Muhammad Aslam constable for post-mortem examination. After the post-mortem examination last-worn clothes of the deceased were produced before him which he secured vide memo. Exh.P.B. He also got the site plan P.K. And P.K./1 prepared from Orangzeb Draftsman. On 31-12-1994 he recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also handed over the respective parcels on the relevant dates to Moharrar for keeping the same in Malkhana. On completion of the investigation he got the accused challaned. Charge under section 302, P.P.C. Was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined P.W.1 Tariq Javed who identified the dead body at the time of post-mortem examination of Khyzer Hayat. Riaz Ahmed P.W.2 is a marginal witness of the recovery of the pistol and three lives bullets, secured through recovery memo. Exh.P.A. Muhammad Asghar constable (P.W.3) was given a parcel containing blood-stained earth on 27-12-1994 for onward transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner. Muhammad Aslam, Constable P.W.4 escorted the dead body of Khyzer Hayat on 24-12-1994. After the post-mortem examination he produced his last-worn clothes before the Investigating Officer who secured it vide memo. Exh.P.B.
Dr. Muhammad Nawaz, P.W.5 examined Khyzer Hayat (injured) on 23-11-1994 and found two lacerated wounds on his person. He issued Medico Legal Report Exh.P.C. Which bears his signatures.
Dr. Khalid Mahmood P.W.6 conducted the post-mortem examination of Khyzer Hayat deceased and observed two injuries on his person. He issued postmortem examination report Exh.P.D. And sketch of injuries P.D./1. Khaild Mahmood, Moharrar Head Constable (P. W'.7) recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.G./1 on the basis of the complaint Exh.P.G. Which was produced before him on 24-11-1994.
On the same day he was handed over parcels containing blood-stained earth which he delivered to Muhammad Asghar constable, (P.W.3) on 27-12-1994 for onward transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner. He was also given a parcel containing two empties and another parcel containing a pistol. On 28-12-1994 he handed over the said parcels to Muhammad Asghar Constable (P.W.3) for their delivery in the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore. Abdur Razzaq, P.W.8 is the complainant, whereas, Rashid Mahmood P.W.9 is the eye-witness of this occurrence. Both of them fully supported the prosecution version. Orangzeb Draftsman, (P.W.10) prepared the site-plan P.K., P.K./1 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. Inayat Ullah Khan, S.-I. Is the Investigating Officer whose evidence has also been discussed above.
Thereafter, learned P.P. Produced the report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.N., report of the Serologist Exh.P.N./1, and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Exh.P.Q. And thereafter closed the prosecution evidence vide his statement, dated 18-12-1995.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The accused Idrees denied the prosecution version and stated that he had been implicated in this case falsely. He further stated that Abdur Razzaq P.W.8 was present at the place of working at the time of the alleged occurrence and he had interpolated his attendance register to show his presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. He further stated that the pistol was in possession of Rana Iftikhar Ahmed which went off accidentally hitting the deceased. The accused, however, examined D.W.1 namely Muhammad Arshad in his defence and thereafter closed his evidence.
5. After going through the evidence produced by the parties, learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad acquitted the accused vide his judgment, dated 4-2-1996. The complainant has felt aggrieved and filed the instant appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused/respondent No,1 namely Muhammad Idrees.
6. We have gone through the record. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the accused/ respondent No,1 and learned counsel for the State.
7. Stand of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the occurrence had taken place at 10-00 a.m. As such the question of fake identity as well as the false implication of the accused does not arise; that the prosecution has brought on the record evidence of the complainant Abdur Razzaq (P.W.8) and the eye-witness Rashid Mahmood P.W.9 to corroborate the prosecution version written in the complaint Exh.P.G, that presence at the spot stands admitted by the accused/respondent No,1 as is evident from his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. That even if it is assumed that the motive asserted by the prosecution is not accepted, case of the prosecution stands proved from the oral evidence; that,the complainant Abdul Razzaq (P.W.8) had not been put even a single suggestion as to why he had deposed against him (accused/ respondent No,1), that the presence of the complainant (P.W.8) and the eye-witness (P.W.9) is natural as they are also related to both the parties. He thus, submits that the learned trial Court was not justified in passing the order of acquittal against accused/respondent No,1.
8. Conversely, the judgment under appeal has been supported by the learned counsel for respondent No,1/accused. His contention is that the occurrence took place on 23-11-1994 at 10-00 a.m. Whereas, the complaint Exh.P.G. Was lodged on the next day at 10-00 p.m. And this delay of 30 hours has not been explained properly; that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the Bazar but no independent witness of the adjacent shop has been examined; that the complainant Abdur Razzaq P.W:8 is resident of Chak Jhumra which is situated at a distance of 30 miles 'and there is no explanation of his presence forth coming on the part of the prosecution; that Rashid Mahmood (P.W.9) is also the resident of a place' situated at a distance of 3-1/2 miles and his- presence at the spot is also not accounted for; that according to the complainant Abdul Razzaq (P.W.8) it was he who had removed the injured (since deceased) to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad but his said contention stands belied from the medico-legal report; as Khyzer Hayat (since deceased) was brought in the hospital by one Safdar Ali; that even the very lodging of the complaint is not free from doubt; that motive aspect of the prosecution version could be established if Mst. Rashidan had been examined; that the injured (since deceased) remained alive for about one month but his statement was not recorded for reasons best known to the prosecution; that evidence of recovery of empties is of no consequences as the same have been conducted after fabricating the evidence by firing from a pistol which was recovered after about one month of tie occurrence. He thus, submits that the trial Court was justified in passing the order of the acquittal which should not ordinarily be reversed unless the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, completely illegal and placed reliance upon the case of Yar Muhammad and 3 others v.
The State 1992 SCM R 96 and Mian Said Baghdad v. Said Mian 1983 SCM R 117.
9. In the instant case-law has been set into motion by the complainant Abdur Razzaq (P.W.8) by lodging the complaint Exh.P.G. This complaint, as per stand of the complaint, was got written from a petition writer and thereafter was produced before Inayat Ullah Khan Investigating Officer. Perusal of the complaint Exh.P.G. Reveals that it contains the signatures of Abdur Razzaq complainant in the same ink in which Karwai Police has been prepared. The complaint Exh.P.G. Has been drafted in black ink, whereas, Karwai Police has been jotted down with blue ball point. The signature of the complainant appearing on the complaint Exh.P.G. Shows that it has been made with the same ink with which Karwai Police has been prepared. Again, the complainant admittedly is an employee of Water Management Department Chak Jhumra a place situated at a distance of 30 miles from Faisalabad. The complainant has shown his presence at the spot contending that he was on leave from his duty. This stand of the complainant has been controverted by the accused/respondent No,1 and stands fortified from the copy of the attendance register which shows that he had marked him absent by interpolating the relevant column pertaining to 23-11-1994. Again the stand of the complainant is that it was he who had transported the injured Khyzer Hayat (since deceased) to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad on 23-11-1994. This contention further stands falsified as his name does not appear in the relevant column of medico-legal report Exh.P.C. Whereas, name of one Safdar Ali son of Riaz appears in the said column. It is a fact that said Safdar Ali has been given up which also raises an adverse presumption against the complainant. Had he been examined he would have not supported the stand taken by the complainant. It is also fact that the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station as well as between the place of occurrence and the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad is 5 furlong and 3-1/2 miles respectively. This being the factual position, the delay of 30 hours in lodging the complaint also leads to an irresistible conclusion that the time has been consumed for fabricating the case against the accused. The evidence of motive has not been believed by the trial Court and rightly so as Mst. Rashidan Bibi has not been examined on that score. The evidence of recovery stands. A disbelieved as the empties of pistol have been sent after pistol P.4 was recovered on 20-12-1994 whereas, the empties were secured on 24-11-1994. The mere fact that the incidence had taken place in the bazaar but none from the adjacent shops has been either cited or examined also raises doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version.
10. For what has been stated above, we do not find that the judgment of the trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality warranting the I interference by this Court. Accordingly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.