' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---Record of the learned trial Court has been received and perused.
2. Through this appeal, Mst. Atta Bibi complainant has called in question the acquittal of Khadim Hussain and Mst. Nasrin respondents Nos.2 and 3 from the charge of murder of Ghulam Yasin deceased in case F.I.R. No.12 registered at Police Station Derawar, on 15-2-2000, for offences under section 302/34, P.P.C. Recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, vide judgment dated 8-5-2001.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly discarded the evidence furnished by P.W.5 Khuda Bakhsh, P.W.6 Wahid Bukhsh and P.W.7 Ghulam Qadir, which was supported by the medical evidence furnished by Dr. Rana Iftikhar Ahmad P.W.I.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the entire record of the case. It has been noticed that Ghulam Yasin deceased, who was husband of respondent Mst.
Nasrin, was buried after his death and at that time Mst. Atta Bibi P.W.4 (complainant-appellant), sister of the deceased, had shown no suspicion. According to her statement P.W.5 Khuda Bakhsh had informed her after burial of the deceased Ghulam Yasin that at the time of "Ghusal" he had seen injuries on the neck, nose, face and on the left arm of the deceased, which was fractured. In case the deceased would have received injuries on his face and nose, it was not possible for the appellant not to notice it. Khuda Bakhsh, who appeared as P.W.5, could not give any explanation as to why he did not point out the injuries immediately after the same were noticed by him. Similarly, P.W.4/appellant admitted that it was after 15 days of the death of Ghulam Yasin, a petition was moved before this Court, wherein charge of murder was alleged. The story of these P.Ws. Is totally falsified by the statement of P. W.1 Dr. Rana Iftikhar Ahmad, who stated that there was no fracture of the arm or nasal bone. He went to further state that there was no injury on the nose and he had not observed any injury on the person of the deceased. He admitted that even hyoid bone was not fractured. P.Ws.6 and 7 have stated that on the fateful day at 9-00 p.m., in the light of torch, they had seen Khadim Hussain respondent at a-distance of one Acre from the house of Ghulam Yasin deceased. Both these P.Ws. Are not the residents of the locality and lived at a distance of 15/20 Km from the house of Ghulam Yasin deceased. According to them, they had gone to visit one Malik Nazir Ahmad, who was never produced during trial. He was not even cited as witness in the report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. Even if it is presumed that they had seen Khadim Hussain respondent near the house of Ghulam Yasin deceased, it would not lead to the exclusive conclusion that Khadim Hussain had committed any offence. P.Ws.6 and 7 have also stated about the motive, as according to them, Ghulam Yasin deceased suspected that his wife Mst. Nasrin had relationship with Khadim Hussain and the deceased had seen, them in objectionable condition.
According "to these P.Ws., Khadim Hussain had confessed the story of motive before the Punchayat but not a single witness from the Punchayat was produced before the trial Court. It was proved during trial that P.W.6 was an interested witness and was not worthy of trust. P.W.8 the Investigating Officer admitted that when he visited the spot Ghulam Farid brother of the deceased had joined the investigation and he had not stated even a word about the illicit relationship between Mst.
Nasrin and Khadim Hussain respondent. He also admitted that it came to his knowledge during investigation that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant remained unable to point out any misreading or non- reading of the record on the part of the learned trial Court. The reasons advanced by the learned trial Court for recording the acquittal of the respondents are neither arbitrary nor perverse and the conclusion arrived at by it are such that any reasonable Court could have arrived at the same conclusions after fair assessm ent of the evidence. In these circumstances, we have not been able to find any occasion for interference with the acquittal of the respondents recorded by the learned trial Court, therefore, this appeal is summarily dismissed under section 421, Cr.P.C.