1992 PLP 2034 (SCMR)

JUSTICE SHAFIUR RAHMAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑State has appealed under section 13(5) of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1991 against the acquittal of Sultan/respondent from a charge under section 302, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution case in brief for which respondent was tried and acquitted was that he was maintaining friendship with the deceased Saifullah son of the complainant Maskeen Ullah (P.W.8). As the accused was suspected to be a bad character, the father had asked his son Saifullah (deceased) to discontinue his association and friendship with the accused which he had done. Aggrieved over it, on the morning of 5th of April, 1991 at about a.m. while Saifullah was on his butcher shop selling out meat in the presence of Maskeenullah (P.W.8) and Atta Muhammad (P.W.9) and others, the .respondent. came there with a plastic jug full of acid and emptied it over the deceased telling that this was for discontinuing the friendship. Saifullah with acid burns was removed to the Mianwali Hospital forthwith and after obtaining the doctor's report his father went and lodged the report at the Police Station at 9‑15 p.m. with Muhammad Saeed S.I. (P.W.11). Dr. Slier Ali (P.W.2) who examined the injured Saifullah found the following injuries on his person:‑‑ "(1) Chemical burns on right side of face, eye, scalp involving tissues more than skin deep. (2) Chemical burns on left shoulder, arm and hand. (3) Chemical burns on left side of face, eye and scalp. (4) Chemical burns on front left chest and back of chest. (5) Chemical burns on left abdomen and back. (6) Chemical burns on left thighs anterior and posterior. Chemical burns were more than skin deep:'

3. The injured received attention in the Mianwali Hospital from 5‑4‑1991 to 19‑6‑.1991 whereafter he was removed to the Nishtar Hospital Multan where he remained under the treatment till 4‑8‑1991. He was discharged from the Hospital when it was discovered that his wounds were not accepting the graft and there was no hope for his recovery. He was removed to Mianwali to his house and ultimately died of the injuries on 14‑8‑1991.

4. The prosecution evidence comprised the statements of two eye‑ witnesses Mashkeenullah (P.W.8) and Atta Muhammad (P.W.9), the so‑called dying declaration recorded by Muhammad Saeed S.I. during the investigation of the case on the certification of the doctor that the deceased was able to make a statement, the injuries found on the person of Saifullah and the motive attributed for the crime. The defence version was one of denial and the respondent explained the case against him by stating as hereunder:‑

"The deceased developed friendship with my son and was working with me for about 6 months or a year. His parents wanted to engage him with Mst. Kanizan, a sister of Atta Muhammad P.W., but he refused, he beseeched me and my wife that we should get him married with his relative at Rawalpindi. I went to Rawalpindi, sought the hand of Mst. Anwar Bibi as a maternal‑uncle of the deceased and got him married. I bore all the expenses of the marriage. On the third day of marriage the complainant and his wife carne to us and on the pretext that they were being maligned by the people took the deceased arid his wife: The deceased was thereafter employed at Rawalpindi for about one year through my efforts. Mst. Kanizan jumped in the canal and since then the complainant and Atta Muhammad developed enmity with me. During the days of occurrence, the deceased was employed as Chowkidar with Chief Medical Store. On my return from Karachi, I learnt that an acid drum had burst and acid had fallen on the deceased and he received injuries. Due to enmity, I have been falsely involved:' He led no defence.

5. The Special Court for Speedy Trials after recording the entire evidence analysed it and came to the conclusion that the motive was not proved, that the ocular account was inimical and unreliable and the defence version was plausible. On this view of the matter, the case of the prosecution was held not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges. .

6. In support of the appeal, the learned Additional Advocate‑General has drawn our attention to the F.I.R. which was promptly lodged by the father of the deceased in which the respondent had been named and the motive had also been disclosed. According to the learned Additional Advocate‑General the ocular evidence, the statement of the deceased recorded during investigation and the motive attributed, all were sufficient to establish the offence alleged against the respondent and his acquittal has not proceeded on good or sound grounds and is liable to interference in appeal.

7. The principles governing interference in an acquittal have been summarised in Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 11) wherein it has been held "the Court will 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 conclusion and irresistible conclusion; and that too with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and for no other purpose. The important test visualised in these cases, in this behalf was that the finding sought to be interfered with, after scrutiny under the foregoing searching light, should be found wholly as artificial, shocking and ridiculous". ?We have scrutinized the evidence in the light of the principles enunciated and concur with the view of the trial Court that the motive in the case cannot be said to be fully established. The complainant in spite of being the father of the deceased has made an uninspiring statement and at places avoided to answer the questions within his knowledge. Similarly, Atta Muhammad (P.W.9) is, shown to be an inimical witness. An independent corroboration which was necessary in such a case was altogether lacking.

8. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this acquittal appeal and the same is dismissed. N.H.Q./51/SAC . ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed