1990 PLP 1075 (SCMR)

3. It was alleged by the prosecution that the respondent was annoyed with the deceased as the latter had refused to advance him a loan of Rs.100. This was stated to be the motive for the occurrence.

4. On hearing about the occurrence from a nephew of the deceased, ASI Muhammad Arshad of Police Station Gowalmandi reached the hospital at 1‑30 a.m. and recorded the statement of Muzaffar Iqbal who was busy in looking after the deceased. On the basis of this statement, the first information report was registered at the police station at 2‑20 a.m. He arrested the respondent on 16‑1‑1983. Three days later, the respondent allegedly took a police party to a place on Thorton Road and from a heap of earth took out a chhuri. The chhuri was later found to be stained with human blood.

5. Immediately after his arrival at the hospital the deceased was examined by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Azhar. He had an incised wound on the right side o f anterior chest and two incised wounds on the left hand and right thumb. 1iis observations were confirmed by Dr. Muhammad Farooq Akmal who performed the post‑mortem examination a day later. According to Dr. Muhammad Akmal all the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be the result of one blow.

6. At the trial, the respondent pleaded not guilty and alleged that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He denied that he had attacked the deceased with a chhuri or that any chhuri was recovered by the investigating officer at his instance.

7. The case of the prosecution rested upon the ocular testimony provided by Muzaffar Iqbal (PW 9) and Muhammad Salim (PW 10). The prosecution also examined Muhammad Rashid (PW 6) who had seen the respondent running away from the scene of occurrence immediately after the deceased was stabbed. It further sought support for the ocular testimony from the alleged recovery of a blood‑stained chhuri at the pointing out of the respondent. The trial Court fount] that Muzaffar Iqbal's presence at the scene of occurrence was not established. It described Muhammad Salim as an unreliable witness as he had made contradictory statements in order to please both parties. It also rejected the testimony of Muhammad Rashid and the evidence relating to the recovery of the blood‑stained chhuri at the instance of the respondent. Accordingly, it held that the charge had not been proved against the respondent and acquitted him. On appeal by the State, the High Court declined to interfere with the findings of the, trial Court.

8. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to consider whether the generally accepted principles of safe administration of criminal justice had been followed by the High Court while dismissing the appeal preferred by the State.

9. In this case so far as motive is concerned, the prosecution alleged that the deceased had declined to give a loan to the respondent and for that reason the respondent was nursing a grievance against him. As already stated, the deceased was the first cousin of the respondent. He was employed as a salesman in a shoe‑shop in Bano Bazar Anarkah. The respondent was on the other hand comparatively better off for he was running a shop of his own. It was somewhat unlikely that the respondent would get annoyed with the deceased for not advancing him a loan of Rs.100. In the circumstances, the High Court as well as the trial Court were not unjustified in taking the view that the motive suggested by the prosecution was an improbable one. It may also be mentioned that the deceased and his brother Muzaffar were gamblers and had been caught a number of times by raiding parties. It can, therefore, hardly be said that no other person apart from the respondent could have any reason to harm him.

10. Muzaffar 1qbal (PW 9) was the elder brother of the deceased. He was employed in the Lahore Omni Bus Service and on the relevant evening his duty hours ended at 10 p.m.. There was no satisfactory explanation for his presence at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time, particularly, when one keeps in mind the fact that the occurrence took place in winter shortly after the mid‑night. His statement is also in conflict with the medical evidence. He was insistent at the trial that the deceased had received three chhuri blows whereas on examination of the injuries of the deceased it appears that he had been struck only once. Apart from that he was at a distance of about 40 yards from the deceased when he was attacked. It was not the case of the prosecution that after stabbing the deceased, the respondent had stayed on at the spot. Considering that the occurrence took place at night time, it is unlikely that this witness would have been in a position to identify, the assailant. It is also to be noticed that immediately after the occurrence the clothes of the deceased were found to be torn. This indicates that just before the attack on him, there was some sort of grappling between him and the assailant. Muzaffar Iqbal does not explain how the clothes of the deceased got torn. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, it does not appear that the High Court and the learned trial Court erred in not relying upon his statement.

11. Muhammad Salim (PW 10) made so many contradictory statements that his credibility stands compromised. He admitted in cross‑examination that at no stage of the occurrence, he saw the respondent giving a knife blow to the deceased, that it was dark at the relevant time and that he saw the respondent running from the spot only from behind. Now, he too alongwith Muzaffar Iqbal was at a distance of 40 yards from the spot at the relevant time. It is, therefore, highly improbable that he would be in a position to identify the assailant in the dark from such a distance. His testimony too was, therefore, rightly rejected by the High Court as well as the trial Court.

12. Muhammad Rashid (PW 6) is a milk‑seller. He stated that he was present at the shop of a panwala in Chowk Gowalmandi when he saw the respondent running away with a chhuri. In the site plan, the shop where he was allegedly sitting has been shown at a distance of 90 yards from the scene of occurrence. He stated that he had seen the respondent from a distance of 40 to 50 paces and had also given him a chase. He did not care to explain why he had done so for he does not mention that he had heard any alarm coming from the scene of occurrence. According to him, he would open his shop at 4 or 5 p.m. and close it at 12 mid‑night. 1f that was indeed so, he should have been resting in his home in the cold wintry night rather than tarrying at the shop of a panwala at the time of occurrence. His evidence is most unconvincing and has been, therefore, rightly excluded from consideration.

13. This leads us to the evidence relating to the recovery of blood‑stained chhuri at the instance of the respondent. To support its case in this regard, the prosecution relied on the evidence of Rahmat Ali (PW 7) and Muhammad Aslam (PW 8) in addition to that of the investigating officer. Rahmat Ali (PW 7) was a gambling partner of the deceased while Muhammad Aslam was a brother of the deceased. The trial Court gave good reasons for rejecting their testimony and the High Court affirmed the view taken by it. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show that the reasons given by the two Courts for not relying upon the testimony of these witnesses were in any way faulty.

14. The principles which govern appeals against acquittal have been laid down in a number of judgments of this Court. These principles were summarised in Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan P L D 198 SC

11. The following observation from this judgment may be reproduced with advantage:‑‑ "The Court would not interfere with acquittal merely because on re appraisal of the evidence it comes to the conclusion different from that of the Court acquitting the accused provided both the conclusions are reasonably possible. If, however, the conclusion reached by that Court was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same and was impossible then this Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusive and irresistible conclusion; and that too with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and for no other purpose." The evidence led by the prosecution at the trial was highly unsatisfactory and certainly not of a quality which could support conviction on a capital charge. In any event, it could not be said that the High Court and the trial Court had after appraising the evidence come to an insupportable conclusion. Keeping in view the principles laid down in Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan, ibid, this is not a fit case for interference by this Court. The appeal is dismissed. The respondent may be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. N.H.Q./M‑1213/S Appeal dismissed.