M. BILAL KHAN, J.-. This appeal is directed again; the judgment dated 31.1.2002 passed by Mr. Abdi Mannan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwal whereby he acquitted the present respondents namely Ghulam Muhammad, Dost Muhammad and Muhammad Riaz sons of Yar Muhammad caste Awan residents of DERA Azmat Khelanwala, Tehsil and District Mianwali of the charges under Sections 302/34, PPC. The trial was held in a private complaint filed by Allah Bakhsh, complainant. Initially the complainant lodged an FIR bearing No. 203, dated 20..9.1997 under Sections 302/34, PPC registered with Police Station, Sadar Mianwali however the local police declared all the accused, with the exception of Ghulam Muhammad as innocent. Thereafter being aggrieved of the findings of the police the complainant filed a private complaint in which all the three respondents were summoned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali to face their trial. The story as unfolded in the private complaint as also in the FIR was that the complainant Allah Bakhsh along with his brother Muhammad Sher went to see her daughter at her husband's house situated at DERA Azmat Khelanwala where they stayed over night with his daughter and son-in-law Ghulam Muhammad accused. At night time Ghulam Muhammad went to the house of his brother Dost Muhammad. On the following morning of 29.9.1997 at about 7:00 a.m. The complainant along with his brother Sher Muhammad proceeded for their home while his daughter accompanied them in order to see them OF. While they were passing through the cotton crop of Muhammad Hussain accused Ghulam Muhammad son-in-law of the petitioner armed with .12 bore shot gun, his brothers Dost Muhammad and Muhammad Riaz both armed with .12 bore guns all of a sudden emerged from the cotton crop where they were sitting in a bush. Ghulam Muhammad made a straight i.e at his wife Mst. Safia Bibi which hit her on left side of her chest second i.e was made by Dost Muhammad which landed under the left side of her chest whereas the third i.e shot by Muhammad Riaz also hit her at left side of chest. The complainant and his brother raised hue and cry whereupon all the accused persons fled from the scene of occurrence.
According to the complaint the injured died at the spot. The motive was introduced in the complaint was that Ghulam Muhammad accused wanted to contract a second marriage and in order to remove the obstacle' he in consultation with his co- accused murdered his wife.
2. At trial the accused were formally charged on 5.11.2000. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, whereupon the prosecution evidence was summoned and as many as 11 witnesses were produced by the prosecution.
3. Dr. Kokab Sultan W.M.O., R.H.C. Appeared as PW-1. She conducted the post-mortem examination of Mst. Zakia Bibi daughter of Allah Bakhsh, the deceased, and found the following injuries on her body:-
(1) A i.e-arm wound of entry 2.5 x 2 c.m. With blackening of edges on the front of left chest, three c.m. Oh the left nipple at 9. O'clock position.
(2) A i.e-arm wound of entry 2.5 x 2.5 c.m. Edges blackened on the front of left chest 9 c.m. Below and inferior to injury No. 1 and 2.5 c.m. From the midline.
(3) A group of 12 i.e-arms wound of exit in an area of 13 x 9 c.m. c.m. Below the angle right scapula and 3 c.m. From midline on the back of right lower chest.
(4) Pellets were recovered from thoraces cavities and left posterior chest wall along with two cards board, recovered from the right thorax cavity.
In the opinion of the lady doctor the cause of death was haemorrhage and. Shock which was due to injuries Nos. 1 and 2 causing death individually and collectively in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were caused by the armed and were ante-mortem.
Probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate and between death and postmortem was about 8 to 1 2 hours.
4. Mst. Noor Khatoon while appearing as PW-2 stated that oh the direction of the S.H.O, she .Narrated the injuries on the person of the deceased Muhammad Ramzan appeared as PW-3 ^nd identified the dead-body at the time of post-mortem examination on 20.9.1997. Allah Bakhsh deposed about the occurrence. Similarly Muhammad Sher appeared as PW-5 and corroborated the statement of Allah Bakhsh, PW-4. Whereas Sher Khan, Constable (PW-6) to whom Muhammad Sajjad, MHC handed over a sealed parcel said to contain bloodstained earth for onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner and Muhammad Akram Khan, Patwari (PW-7) who prepared the site plan (Ex. PG) on the direction of the police, similarly, Muhammad Iqbal Khan, S.I.
(PW-10) to whom Moharrar of the Police Station handed over*the report of Serologist were the witnesses who were formal in nature.
5. Malik Muhammad Qasim, S.I. (PW-8) was the Investigating Officer. He conducted the initial investigation of the case and recorded the statement of the complainant on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PD) was recorded. He proceeded to the spot* prepared the Injury Statement (Ex.PC) and Inquest Report (Ex.PR). He sent the dead-body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination through Amanullah Constable. He collected the blood-stained earth from the spot, vide recovery memo.
Ex.PF. He also collected the last worn clothes of the deceased Shalwar P-1, Qameez P-2, Vest P-3 and a sealed phial and took the same into his possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PL. He recorded the statements of the PWs under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer further stated that he inspected the spot and prepared the rough site-plan (Ex.PK) and finally he got the site-plan (Ex.
PG) prepared from the Halqa Patwari (PW-7). Thereafter the investigation was transferred to D. S.P.
Ghulam Jilani, Inspector Range Crime (PW-11) who also investigated the case and found Ghulam Muhammad accused guilty whereas the rest of the accused were found to be innocent Muhammad Aslam, S.I. /S.H.O, appeared as PW-9 and on the direction of Ghulam Jilani, Inspector prepared the challan against Ghulam Muhammad accused and after due formalities submitted the report for trial under Section 173, Cr.P.C.
6. After tendering in evidence the reports of Chemical Examiner Ex.PM and that of Serologist Ex.PN the complainant closed his case on 21.1.2002.
7. At the close of the complainant's case the statements of the accused under Section 342, Cr.P.C, were recorded. They denied the allegations as levelled in the complaint and professed-'their innocence and when the accused Ghulam Muhammad was asked as to why this case against him and why the PWs deposed against him he replied as under:- "Actually the killers of Safia Bibi were very close relatives of Allah Bakhsh complainant and to save them Allah Bakhsh has filed this false complaint against me. In all investigations, I was declared as innocent."
8. The remaining two accused namely Dost Muhammad and Muhammad Riaz relied on the statement of Ghulam Muhammad co-accused. All the accused neither appeared in their own "defence under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C, nor opted to give any evidence in their defence.
9. At the close of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali vide his judgment dated 31.1.2002 rejected the plea of the complainant and Deserved t'at the complainant has miserably failed to tablish his case against the accused and acquitted all e three accused by giving them the benefit of the doubt.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment the )complaint filed a petition for special leave to appeal in is Court and on the grant of special leave to appeal e instant appeal came-up for hearing.
11. Mian Muhammad Aslam, learned counsel for e appellant has contended that the eye-witnesses namely Allah Bakhsh-and Muhammad Sher PWs-4 and 5 respectively have fully corroborated the version as sen in the complainant as also in the FIR that the medical evidence is in consonance with the ocular :count other than the fact that according to the FIR ree injuries were caused to the deceased white chally two injuries were found during the post-mortem amination that no adverse presumption can be drawn against the complainant for filing the complaint seven on the after the alleged occurrence. He finally pleaded at the learned Trial Court fell in error by extending the ;befit of the doubt to the respondents and be quitting them.
12. On the other hand Mr. M.A. Zafar, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently defended the impugned acquittal order. He maintained that both the ^-witnesses were chance witnesses and they had no business to be present at the place of occurrence as eir residences were admittedly twenty miles away 3m the place of occurrence; that the ocular account is completely belied by the medical evidence with refence to the number of shots time of occurrence sence of faecal matter meaning thereby that the mach of the deceased was empty on account of sence of faecal matter in the large intestine ingesting that the deceased had not taken a break st nor she had evacuated prior to the occurrence which indicates that the occurrence had taken place somewhere around mid night; that the presence of blackening and burning on the wounds shows that the shot was fired from a very close range, i.e. a circumstance, which is negated by the ocular account that the motive part of the story that Ghulam Muhammad accused wanted to marry again and thus tried to remove the obstacle by killing his wife has rightly been disbelieved by the Trial Court. The learned counsel contended that if Ghulam Muhammad wanted to remarry he could easily have divorced his wife instead of causing her death. Lastly, he argued that in order to interfere in the judgment of acquittal the same should be perverse, fanciful, shocking or artificial. He relied on the case titled Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamraiz Khan, repotted in PLD 1985 Supreme Court 11 wherein important and consistently followed principles for setting aside acquittal order have been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also placed reliance on a case titled Nawaz AH and another v. The State (1981 SCM R 132), wherein it was held that the wounds could not have charring marks if the i.e had been shot from a distance of i.e paces, In order to demonstrate that where there was a glaring contradiction in ocular account and the medical evidence the benefit thereof must go to the accused, reliance was placed by the learned counsel' on a case titled, Darey Khan and another v. The State (1972 SCM R 578) wherein the prosecution had alleged each One of two accused to have fired one shot each hitting the deceased which was contradicted by the medical evidence revealing only one hit and the benefit of doubt was given to the accused and he was acquitted. He also referred to a case titled Mardan AH v. Ghulam and others (1980 SCM R 889), to contend that the ocular evidence as to time of occurrence cannot be accepted to the extent of being inconsistent with the medical .Evidence. Finally he relied on a case, titled Yar Muhammad and 3 others v. The State (1992 SCM R 96) wherein it was held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that a judgment of acquittal could not be interfered with unless the same was perverse completely illegal and on perusal of evidence no other conclusion could be made except that the accused was guilty or there was complete misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice.
13. Mian Abdul Qayyum Anjum, learned State counsel supported the acquittal judgment dated- 31.1.2002 and added that at the time of post-mortem examination none of the alleged eye- witnesses was present and if any of them had been present at the place of occurrence as claimed by them at least one of them should have been present at the time of postmortem examination.
14. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance.
15. I find that the learned Trial Judge has evaluated the evidence according to well-known principles of criminal administration of justice by advancing convincing reasons for disbelieving the prosecution evidence. The motive part has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court. I have also found that there are serious discrepancies in the ocular account and the medicai' evidence, which are absolutely irreconcilable, It is now established law that the Courts should be slow to interfere in the judgments of acquittal unless it is felt that glaring injustice had been done in administration of criminal justice or that the judgment of the Trial Court was perverse, illegal, fanciful or shocking.
Reference can profitably be made to the case titled Ahmad Nawaz v. Khushi Muhammad and another (KLR 2000 (Lah) 49), wherein some of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondents have also been taken note of.
16. In view of what has been stated above, I find that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court dated 31.1.2002 is well-reasoned and does not admit of any interference.
17. Consequently, the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court dated 31.1.2002 is upheld and this appeal being without merit is hereby dismissed.