1. BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.---Through the instant appeal judgment dated 14-3-1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur has been assailed by Muhammad Din whereby respondents Nos,1 to 6 were acquitted of the charge under sections 302, 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C. in case F.I.R. No,129 of 1993 dated 2-6-1993 registered with Police Station Khudian, District Kasur at the instance of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the case are that F.I.R. Exh.P.0/ I was registered on the statement (Exh.P.0) of Muhammad Din son of Nizam Din P.W.12 got recorded with Subah Sadiq S.-I/S.H.O., Police Station Khudian P. W.14 at Adda Khudian at 4-30 p.m. on 2-6-1993 under sections 324, 148, 149 and 109, P.P.C. about the occurrence which took place at 11 a.m. on the same day at the Dera of the complainant and his brother Haji Ahmad Din, deceased. It was stated by the complainant in his statement that he was present at his Dera, in village Sheikh Saad Kaluwala on 2-6-1993 after offering prayer of Eid-ul-Azha. He heard the noise from the house of Haji Muhammad son of Jalal Din he saw that Nizam Din son of Rehmat Ali was removing skin of sacrificial goat of Haji Muhammad when Iqbal son of Palla abused him that why he has not slaughtered his goat first, on which, some altercation and grappling took place. Iqbal went back and informed his brother and cousin Sabir, on which. Sabir respondent armed with .12-bore gun, Muhammad Hussain armed with .12 bore gun, Muhammad Hassan armed with 7MM rifle, Munawar armed with .12-bore gun and Sarwar armed with .12 bore gun residents of the village in furtherance of their common object attacked at the Dera of the complainant. Muhammad Hussain raised Lalkara that Haji Muhammad and others be taught lesson for insulting Iqbal.Sabir accused fired at Haji Ahmad Din hitting on right eyebrow who fell on the ground and became unconscious. Thereafter, Muhammad Hussain, Sarwar, Munawar fired from their guns at Ahmad Din son of Ghulam Muhammad P.W.9 hitting at different parts of his body. Both the injured were removed to the hospital and after obtaining their M.L.Rs, instant case was registered. Haji Ahmad Din succumbed to the injuries and section 302, P.P.C. was added.
2. The motive alleged for the occurrence was enmity between the parties over contesting elections of local bodies.
3. The accused were arrested and the weapons of offence were recovered. After completion of investigation, challan was submitted. The trial Court framed the charge and recorded the prosecution evidence and also statements of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. They denied the allegation and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused during trial..
5. The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Adnan Hakeem P.W.1 who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Haji Ahmad Din.
6. Earlier on 2-6-1993 Dr.Mumtaz Ahmad P.W.2 had medically examined Haji Ahmad Din son of Nizam Din and found the following injuries:-- "A lacerated wound 3/4 x 3/4 c.m. lust above the right eyebrow.
7. Wound was going deep, depth not measured. Swelling around the wound 5 x 5 c.m. with the right black eye. Margin of the wound were inverted."
8. On the same day, he also medically examined Ahmad Din son of Ghulam Muhammad and found the following injuries on his person:---
(1) A lacerated wound 1/4 x 1/4 c.m. with swelling 1 x 2 c.m. on the left side of forehead 4-1/2 c.m. above left eye brow. Margins were inverted.
(2) A lacerated wound 1/4 x 1/4 c.m. with swelling 1 x 1 c.m. on the outer side of right forearm 4 c.m. from the right wrist-join. Margins were inverted.
(3) A lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. with swelling 1 x 1 c.m on the front and lower part of right thigh 13 c.m. above tibial tuberocity. Margins were inverted.
9. The ocular account was furnished by Ahmad Din P.W.-9, who was injured witness of the occurrence and Haji Muhammad, P.W. 10, Haji Ibrahim, P.W.-11 and Muhammad Din complainant P.W.-12. They supported the prosecution story as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Amanat Ali, A.S.-I. P.W.-13 had arrested Muhammad Sabir accused who led to the recovery of gun P.4 which was taken into possession by him through memo. Exh.P.J. Subah Sadiq, S.-I. P.W.-14 had recovered the statement Exh.P.O. of the complainant, effected the recovery of incriminating articles from the spot, recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C., arrested accused Muhammad Hassan, Muhammad Hussain and Munawar. Thereafter, investigation was entrusted to Muhammad Nawaz - Arif, Inspector P.W.-15, who had effected the recoveries from the other accused and completed the investigation and submitted challan of the case.
10. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations, claimed their innocence and false involvement.
11. The trial culminated into acquittal of accused/respondents. Hence this appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it was a daylight occurrence; the prosecution story was corroborated by Ahmad Din P.W.-9 who was injured in the same occurrence. His presence at the spot cannot be doubted. The parties knew each other being residents of the same locality; that there was no . question of mistaken identity or reasons tor their false implication; that the ocular account furnished by the eye-witnesses was fully corroborated from the medical evidence and the reasons given by the trial Judge to acquit the accused are based on misreading and misappreciation of the evidence. Conversely the appeal has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents and for the State. Learned counsel for the accused/respondents has placed reliance on 1991 SCM R 2220 (Feroze Khan v. Fateh Khan and 2 others, 1992 SCM R 96 (Yar Muhammad and 3 others v. The State), 1993 SCM R 828 (Fayyaz Akhtar v. The State) to argue that the reasons given by the learned trial Judge to acquit the respondents are neither perverse nor fanciful and there is no misreading or misappreciation of evidence, therefore, the acquittal is justitied.
13. Heard. Record perused.
14. The motive has not been proved. Although absence or weakness of motive is no ground to acquit or to award lesser penalty but in the instant case the parties are residents of the same village. No such unfortunate occurrence took place in the past. lqbal son of Palla has neither been produced during the investigation nor in the trial, therefore, the motive was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court. The reasons for discarding evidence of the eye-witnesses Ahmad Din P.W.9, Haji Muhammad P.W.-10, Ibrahim P.W.11 and Muhammad Din P.W.12 have been given in para.45 of the judgment. The injuries on Ahmad Din P.W.9 have been attributed to three persons i.e. Muhammad Hussain, Munawar and Sarwar and according to the statement of the injured prosecution witness and the site plan, the distance from where.he was fired at is about 85 feet and the injuries on his person are only of scattered pellets and three persons have been falsely implicated, therefore, we find that no other conclusion could be arrived than as by the learned Trial Judge. We find that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner as it has been alleged by the eye-witnesses. The reasons given by the trial Court to discard the ocular account are borne out from the record. The contradiction in ocular account and the medical evidence qua the injury to the deceased is also supported from the record. After giving due consideration to the contentions raised at the bar we do not find any misreading or misappreciation of evidence; and appraisal made by the trial Court is up to the norms and standard laid down by the superior Courts, therefore, the appeal is dismissed having no force.