IJAZ-UL-HASSAN,J.---Iftikhar Ahmad alias Ifti son of Muhammad Sadiq, resident of village Data, District Mansehra, accused-respondent was tried, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansehra under section 302, P.P.C. On the allegation of having, on 10-10-1991 at 6-00 p.m. In the limits of village Data, committed 'Qatl-e---Amd' of his co-villager, Qamrul Islam son of Ibrahim, by firing. At the conclusion of trial, accused-respondent was acquitted- of the charge on extending the benefit of doubt, vide judgment dated 6-8-1997.
2. Complainant Safeer Ahmad, feeling aggrieved, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.33 of 1997 under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Seeking setting aside the impugned judgment and award of conviction and sentence to accused-respondent in accordance with law.
3. Complainant Safeer Ahmad, runs a painting and denting shop in Mansehra. The sister of deceased is married to him. The sad news of the murder of Qamrul Islam is stated to have been conveyed to complainant on the day of occurrence i.e. 10-10-1991 at about 7-00 p.m. In his house in village Data, by one Waheed son of Muhammad Farid of his village.
4. Facts of the prosecution story in brief are that on the day of occurrence on return to the house at about 7-00 p.m. From the shop, the complainant was informed that Qamrul Islam has been murdered near the shop of one Abdur Rashid son of Muhammad Aslam at 6-00 p.m. The complainant hurriedly rushed to the spot and found Qamrul Islam lying, murdered. On inquiry Saeed Ahmad son of Azizur Rehman's and Shabir Ahmad son of Abdur Rehman's, residents of village Data informed the complainant that they have seen Iftikhar accused-respondent running away from the spot after firing. The complainant expressed his ignorance about the motive and stated that he is confident that accused-respondent is the author of the crime.
5. Jehanzeb, the then A.S.-I. Police Station Saddar Mansehra (P.W.11) on 10-10-1991 was on 'Gasht' in village Data when Safeer Ahmad complainant met him at about 7-30 p.m. And made report regarding the occurrence. The report was reduced into writing vide 'Murasila' (Exh.P.A./1) subsequently incorporated in F. I. R. (Exh.P.A). After recording the report A.S.-I. Jehanzeb P.W. Left for the spot and on reaching there inspected dead body of Qamrul Islam deceased and prepared inquest report and injury sheet and sent the dead body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He also drew up site plan (Exh.P.B) at the pointation of P. Ws. During the spot inspection he recovered blood-stained earth, a printed cloth also stained with blood and 4 empties of .30 bore and sealed the same into separate parcels in the presence of marginal witnesses These articles were sent to Chemical Examiner and Fire Arms Expert whose reports are Exh.P.R. And Exh.P.S. Respectively. The witness in hand also recorded statements of P. Ws. Rashid Mehmood, Saeed Ahmad, Shabir Ahmad, Qazi Waheed, Ali Zaman and others. Syed Farman Shah, the then S.H.O.
Police Station Saddar, Mansehra (P.W.13), in the meanwhile reached the spot, took over the investigation from A.S.-I. Jehanzeb, arrested the accused-respondent on 12-10-1991 from a nearby 'Jangal' and recovered a bag (Exh.P.4) from his possession. The bag contained a .30 bore pistol (P.5) with two cartridges (P.6) loaded in the magazine, coo pairs of clothes, a Chadir and one Identity Card. All these articles were sealed into a parcel vide recovery memo. (Exh.P.G.) in presence of marginal witnesses. On completion of investigation complete challan was submitted against accused-respondent in Court.
6. In order to prove its case prosecution produced 14 witnesses before the trial Court, including Dr. Shamsul Haq, Medical Officer, DHQ Hospital, Mansehra (P.W.1) who conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased vide report (Exh.P.M.), Investigating Officers and other relevant witnesses.
7. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence was brought to the notice of accused-respondent to enable him to offer explanation with regard to the crime imputed to him. He denied the prosecution allegations, professed innocence and claimed to have been falsely charged at the behest of Bashir Ahmad, elder brother of the deceased, working as Deputy Superintendent in Frontier Police. The accused-respondent did not appear in his defence as envisaged by section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Neither produced any evidence in defence.
8. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the material on record, arrived to the conclusion that charge against accused-respondent could not be established and prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. Resultantly, accused---respondent was acquitted of the charge on extending the benefit of doubt.
9. It has been argued by Qazi Shamsuddin, Advocate learned counsel for the complainant- appellant that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment on flimsy grounds which are not recognized by law and are also belied by the relevant material on the record. He maintained that the evidence of the prosecution is solid, firm and uniform on salient feature of the case, but the learned trial Judge has assessed every piece of evidence in isolation of others and disbelieved the evidence of prosecution for want of proving all hypothetical questions having no relevancy with the case. Additionally, he contended that mere fact that some of the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R., having witnessed' the crime were withheld by the prosecution at the trial, should not have influenced the mind of the learned trial Court to hold that prosecution has not been able to establish its case. In this respect he relied on Siraj Din v. Kala and another PLD 1964 SC
26. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel submitted that obliging concessions were given by some of the prosecution witnesses which should have been ignored out-rightly without making the same a ground for acquittal of accused respondent.
10. In reply Mr. Muhammad Akbar Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for accused--respondent, controverted the arguments and supported impugned judgment more or less on the same grounds which weighed with the learned trial Court. He submitted that it was a blind murder. P.Ws.
Qazi Waheed, Rashid Mehmood and Ali Zairian were not present at the spot. That these witnesses were given maltreatment in the police station and mercilessly beaten in order to pressurise them to depose against accused-respondent and later on to strengthen the prosecution case, recoveries from the spot and reports of the Chemical Examiner and Fire Arms Expert were manufactured during the investigation of the case at the behest of Bashir Ahmad, elder brother of the deceased. To augment the contentions, reliance was placed on Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 and Muhammad Khan v. Maula Bakhsh and another 1998 SCM R 570.
11. We have given due consideration to the matter in the light of the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties at Bar.
12. The appeal in hand is filed by the complainant against acquittal of accused--respondent. It needs no reiteration that there is a marked difference between appraisement of evidence in the appeal against conviction and in the appeal against acquittal. In the appeal against conviction appraisal or evidence is done strictly and in the appeal against acquittal, the same rigid method of appraisement is not to be applied as there is already finding of acquittal given by the trial Court after proper analysis of evidence on record. In the acquittal appeal, interference is made only when it appears that there has been gross misreading of the evidence which amounts to miscarriage of justice. While considering the scope of section 417, Cr.P.C. It is held that in an appeal against acquittal, this Court would not, in principle ordinarily interfere and instead would give due weight and consideration to the findings of the Court acquitting the accused. The Court would not interfere with the acquittal merely because on re-appraisement of the evidence it comes to the conclusion different from that of the Court acquitting the accused provided both the conclusions are reasonably possible. The ordinary scope of petition or appeal against acquittal of accused-- respondent is considerably narrow and limited. The criteria laid down for the appeal against acquittal is entirely different than the criteria for hearing of appeal against conviction. Muhammad Usman and 2 others v. The State 1992 SCM R 489 and the State v. Muhammad Sharif and others 1995 SCM R 635.
13. Having considered the arguments and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on file, we share the view of learned counsel for accused--respondent that prosecution has totally failed to establish its case against accused respondent and the learned trial Judge has correctly held that involvement of accused--respondent in the murder of Qamrul Islam deceased is highly doubtful. It may be remarked here that eye-witnesses named in the F.I.R.
And claimed having seen accused--respondent firing at the deceased, have been withheld by the prosecution and substituted by new witnesses examined on the second or third day of the occurrence. However, it has been admitted by these witnesses in unequivocal terms that they were maltreated and beaten mercilessly in the Police Station. This admission lends strength to the assertion of learned counsel for accused-respondent that the witnesses were maltreated at the instance of Bashir Ahmad in order to oblige them to depose against accused-respondent. Having regard to this aspect of the matter, we are susceptical about the eye-witness account of the eye- witnesses and feel that the learned trial Judge was quite justified to exclude their statements out of consideration. We also feel that the-learned trial Judge had good reasons to ignore recoveries and reports of the Chemical Examiner and Fire Arms Expert, which appear to have been manufactured and fabricated during the investigation of the case. It appears to us that murder of Qamrul Islam was an unseen incident and accused--respondent was implicated in the case on mere suspicion.
It is true that the finding of acquittal .Is not sacrosanct. If the reasons given by the trial Court 'are speculative or of artificial nature or the findings are based on no evidence or is the result of misreading or misinterpretation of evidence or the conclusion drawn as to the guilt or innocence of the accused persons, are perverse, resulting into miscarriage of justice, same can be interfered with in appropriate cases in the light of the principles laid down by the apex Court, regarding appreciation of evidence. In the instant case conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court are not in any way perverse or artificial, justifying interference of this Court. It is well-settled proposition of law that test of credibility of a witness is neither his relationship or friendship on either side nor his mere presence at the scene of offence at the time of occurrence but it is the worth of his testimony valued on the established judicial norms which finally proves or disproves his partiality as a witness. According to golden, principle of benefit of doubt, one substantial doubt is enough to acquit the accused. The evidence in this case is replete with contradictions, therefore, has created a genuine doubt in our mind regarding the truthfulness of the version as advanced by the prosecution.
14. Pursuant to the above discussion we find that the reasons given by the learned trial Court for the acquittal of the accused-respondent from the charge have been borne out from the evidence on record and it cannot be said that the impugned judgment has been passed on surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant has remained unable to point out any illegality or impropriety in the judgment justifying interference of this Court. Finding no substance in this appeal we dismiss the same and maintain the impugned judgment of acquittal.