1993 PCr (PLP)

(7) An incised wound 7 x 3 c.m. on left cheek below the eye. (8) An incised wound 2 x 2 c.m. on the back left side of the neck. (9) A stab wound 2 x 3 c.m. on the left upper part of the chest. (10) An incised wound stabbing 2 x 1 c.m. left axilla pit. (11) A stab wound 1 x 1 c.m. on the upper and inner side of axilla below injury No.10. (12). A stab wound 2 x 2 c.m. on the outer front side of left chest below clavical with underline rib cut. (13) Eight multiple stab wounds in an area of 17 x 12,c.m. of different sizes such as 3 x 1 c.m., 1 x 1/2 c.m., 1/2 x 1/2 c.m., each on the froat lower part of the left chest, abdomen and renal area. (14) A stab wound 5 x 2 c.m. with underline rib cut on the back upper part of the left chest near shoulder blade. (15) A stab wound 4 x 1-1/2 c.m. on the back left side of the chest near and lower end scapula. (16) A stab wound 2 x 1 c.m. on the back left chest below injury No.15. (17) A stab wound 2 x 1/2 c.m. on the back of the left chest below. injury No.16. (18) A stab wound 4 x 2 c.m. on the back right side of the chest in middle inner end of scapula. (19) 3 stab wounds 2 x 1 c.m. on the back of the right chest below the injury No.18 near the scapula. (20) A stab wound 3 x 2 c.m. on the lower front of the chest towards the abdomen on the right side. (21) A stab wound 1 x 1/2 c.m. on the right side of the neck. All the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapons and injuries Nos.9 and 12 to 20 were found individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

5. The prosecution produced six witnesses in all in support of its case. Haji Ghulam Rasul having been won over and Abdul Ghafoor, Ghulam Qadir and Ghulam Haider P.Ws. were given up as unnecessary. The report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.K. and that of the Serologist Exh.P.L. were made part of the record. Ghulam Rasul P.W.1, brother of the deceased and Ghulam Qasim P.W.2, the eye-witnesses of the occurrence have deposed in support of the prosecution case consistent with the contents of the F.I.R. and medical evidence.

6. The respondents denied the allegations of causing murder of Mehmood deceased and pleaded non guilty.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the occurrence took place at 12-00 noon and the report was lodged at about 12-30 p.m. within a period of half an hour containing all material facts with detail and that except the illicit liaison of the deceased with Mst. Sakina, wife of Ghulam Shabbir, there was no other enmity between the parties. He argued that the reasons given by the trial Court are not sound enough to sustain the acquittal as a valuable right.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that P.W.1, real brother of the deceased, has admitted the receiving of information about the occurrence, at the hotel near the place of occurrence, therefore, the possibility that by the time he reached the spot the assailants after doing their job had already left the place could not be ruled out. Ghulam Qasim P.W.2 although is not related to the complainant party, yet as per his own admission he is a police tout. 8-A. Mr. Zafar Mahmood Anjum, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State conceded the acquittal but on a question put by the Court, he showed his inability to answer the same for want of preparation. He has been warned not to be irresponsible in future.

9. I have weighed the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully with their assistance. Ghulam Rasul P.W.1 is the real brother of Mehmood deceased who on receiving information about the occurrence through Abdul Ghafoor his son at hotel rushed to the spot and raised alarm to apprehend the respondents, who were running from the spot after committing the crime. He followed the respondents but remained unsuccessful to apprehend them. Ghulam Rasul did not claim to see the respondents causing the injuries to the deceased but their leaving of the place of occurrence with weapons of offence. Ghulam Qasim is entirely an independent witness, who fully supported the prosecution and corroborated P.W.1. Admittedly the P.Ws. reached the spot at the time when the respondents had completed their job but had not yet left the spot. Abdul Ghafoor, son of the complainant who conveyed the information to the complainant at hotel was not produced and further none of the witnesses has seen the respondents causing injuries to the deceased but their running from the spot with daggers after committing the murder is fully established with no doubt. The exclusion of the recovery of daggers from consideration is understandable, but the reason given for disbelieving the motive suffers from perversity. The deceased and the respondents are the first cousins inter se and there is nothing on record to suggest that they were not carrying good relations to exclude the chance of visit of deceased to the house of respondents and there seems no reason for the complainant to substitute the respondents for unknown assailants. The P.Ws. with no difficulty would claim to have also seen the respondents causing injuries to the deceased, but the narration of story in its natural way removed doubt about their claim to see the respondents running from the spot with daggers. The fact of departure of respondents with daggers after arrival of P.Ws. at the spot, and the motive of suspicion of illicit relations of deceased with Mst. Sakina is proved beyond doubt. The nature of injuries and the weapons of offence used in the occurrence is another important factor providing affirmative evidence to the ocular account. The lodging of the report immediately after the occurrence nominating the respondents in the F.I.R. containing a natural story sufficiently established their presence and identity as assailants of the occurrence. The arrest of the respondents on the evening of the day of occurrence is yet another factor to be given effect.

10. The contentions of the learned counsel for non-production of any person from the market and that the application moved by the father of the complainant is contradictory to the story of F.I.R. do not carry any weight. The parties were strangers to the people in the market and, therefore, it would have been a futile exercise to produce any person from market. Similarly the father of complainant was not an eye-witness, therefore, application moved by him, if any, is of no significance.

11. The trial Court's judgment of acquittal is not supported' by sound reasons attracting the principle of non-interference in the order of acquittal. The conclusion arrived at by the trial Court for acquittal of respondents is ridiculous and based on illogical reason, leading to miscarriage of justice. Undoubtedly, the trial Court has always upper hand to judge the matter in the better way as compared to the appellate and revisional Court but if the acquittal is suffered from absurdity and perversity leading to injustice, the revisional Court can interfere in the matter.

12. There is sufficient material available on record to establish that the respondents and none else were the assailants of the occurrence. The motive, the medical evidence, the presence of respondents with blood-stained daggers in their hands near the injured coupled with the fact that the parties were closely related inter se with no enmity excluding all possibilities of false implication are strong circumstances providing corroborative evidence against, the respondents.

13. For the foregoing reasons, this revision is accepted, the impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to, the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh for retrial with- the direction to the, parties to appear before the learned Sessions Judge for further proceedings in the case on 1-9-1993. N.H.Q./G-154/L Revision accepted.