1988 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑Ss. 302 & 148/149‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.439‑‑ Appraisal of evidence‑‑Eye‑witness closely related to deceased and residing, at distance of 50 miles from place of occurrence Admittedly witness having no property around nor his family living nearby No satisfactory explanation of his presence at spot forthcoming Ocular evidence in conflict with medical evidence‑‑Motive rightly disbelieved by Trial Court‑‑Recoveries found doubtful‑‑Appraisal of evidence found in consonance with principles laid down for appreciation of evidence‑ Appraisal of evidence in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, held, could only be interfered with if found perverse‑‑Revision dismissed in circumstances. Mian Abdul Rashid for Petitioner. Date of hearing 6th July, 1987. Through this criminal revision the acquittal of the respondents recorded vide orders dated 21‑1‑1987 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, has been called in question. The respondents, Rehmat, Karamet sons of Din Muhammad, Yousaf and Muhammad Ashiq sons of Sultan and Atta Ullah son of Muhammad Shafi were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura on the charge under section 302/148, P.P.C. for having an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of the common subject of which the respondents allegedly committed the murder of Muhammad Rafiq.

2. I have gone through the record of this case. The ocular testimony in this case was furnished by Abdul Rehman complainant PW 4 and Liaqat Ali PW

5. Another eye‑witness Muhammad Ishaq was not produced. The complainant is the father of the deceased and he stated that the deceased accompanied by him and Liaqat PW 5 were proceeding to Sharaqpur and when they passed near the garden of Zahoor Elahi on a Rehra, all the respondents emerged from the garden, Karamat Ali, Muhammad Ashiq and Atta Ullah were armed with daggers, while Rehmat and Yousaf were empty handed. The deceased and the complainant tried to ran the Rehra but they could not succeed and Rahmat caught hold of Liaqat PW in Japha while Yousaf caught hold of the complainant. The respondent Atta Ullah inflicted first dagger blow on the right thigh of the deceased. Muhammad Ashiq gave a dagger blow on the left thigh of the deceased and Karamat Ali also gave a dagger blow to the deceased on his left thigh. Hue and cry raised by the complainant attracted the given up P.W. Muhammad Ishaq. On seeing Ishaq all the accused ran away with their weapons. A careful analysis of the ocular testimony reveals that Liaqat Ali PW 5 is nephew of the complainant and a cousin of the deceased. He is a resident of village known as Jalalpur in District Kasur while the occurrence took place near village Ghazipur in District Sheikhupura. The village of Liaqat Ali situated at a distance of 50 miles from the place of occurrence. Liaqat Ali admitted that he had no property near the place of occurrence nor his family lives nearby and the perusal of the statement further reveals that he failed to render a satisfactory explanation about his presence at the scene of occurrence. The medical evidence reveals that there were only two injuries and in fact the third one was the exit wound. On the other hand. It was specifically asserted by the prosecution that in all three injuries were caused to the deceased. The ocular evidence is thus in conflict with the medical evidence.

4. As far as the motive is concerned the same has been rightly disbelieved. The recoveries in this case are also doubtful. The learned Trial Judge, thus rightly held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt. In course of the hearing of this revision petition nothing was brought to my notice so as to justify the setting aside of the judgment of the trial Court and to remand the case for retrial. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly criticised the appraisal of evidence by the trial Court. I am afraid, I cannot appraise the evidence unless the appraisal by the trial Court was perverse. In my view, the appraisal of evidence in this case is in consonance with the principles laid down to govern the appraisal of evidence. Accordingly, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. S.A./A‑240/L Revision dismissed.