1989 PLP 2810 (MLD)

Injury No.1 was opined to have been caused by a fire-arm. The rest were opined to have been caused by a blunt pointed weapon. Death was opined to have resulted from injury No.l. A bullet was also recovered from the body of the deceased.

4. All the respondents denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. Tahir Shah respondent took up the stance that he had married Mst. Najma daughter of Mst. Afzal Bibi with whom the deceased had illicit relations and t hat he tried to keep his contacts with her after the marriage. He stated that in order to avoid any untoward incident, he changed his place of residence. He stated that on the day of occurrence the deceased had gone to abduct Mst. Najma Bibi where he indulged in firing as well, and died on having suffered injuries during that occurrence. The other two respondents also pleaded innocence and owned the same position with more details.

5. Learned trial Judge did not believe the motive version of the prosecution case. His observation that no witness to the payment of money by the deceased to Tahir Shah accused-respondent was named, and the complainant did not claim that the amount had been advanced to the accused by the deceased in his A presence nor did he produce any receipt in that regard, cannot be termed to be misappreciation of the prosecution evidence in any manner. His observations that the said story appeared to be improbable, is also not unfounded in our view, and so finding of the trial Judge on this account does not call for any interference.

6. Learned trial Judge has given sufficient reasons for discarding the statements of the only two eye-witnesses. His observation that the stance taken by Tahir Shah respondent was corroborated by the statement made by Hamid Ullah Qureshi, D.S.P., C.W.1 is in accordance with the material on record.

7. Apart from the reasons given by the trial Judge for acquittal of the respondents, we have also noted that the medical evidence in this case is B contradictory to the ocular account. In that, the deceased, according to the F.I.R. was fired at twice with gun by Tahir Shah respondent but he was found only. to have suffered one gunshot injury. Nothing was stated about the deceased having suffered any injury with any blunt weapon although he was found to have suffered three blunt weapon injuries. The explanation given in this regard by the witnesses that the said injuries had resulted due to friction while being taken in a rickshaw to the hospital, is hardly probable. Still, the other contradiction is that instead of pellet a bullet was recovered from the body of the deceased. The change made by C the witnesses at the trial that Tahir Shah respondent had fired shots from the rifle really cannot be of any help to the prosecution because the gap between the ocular account and the medical evidence is so wide that this improvement` alone cannot fill the same.

8. The antecedents and the character of the witnesses about which enough material had been brought on record, noted by the trial Judge for not placing i implicit reliance on their statements, also possesses weight.

9. The argument of learned Additional Advocate-General that there was no reason for the learned trial judge to have disbelieved the statement of Muhammad Hussain P.W.9 who was a resident of Faisalabad, in our view does not possess any weight, in view of his proved connection with Khadim Hussain P.W., who was a friend of the deceased in anti-social activities and also for the reason that according to the version given in the F.I.R. he does not appear to have witnessed the whole occurrence, but at the trial he claimed to have been present there from the very beginning. On having applied our mind carefully, we find no material on record to differ with the conclusions arrived at by learned trial Judge. The judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed being without merits. N.H.Q./S-428/L Appeal dismissed.