P L D 1994 Supreme Court 338 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Discrepancy in the number of pistol in the two memos. not having been clarified by the prosecution at the trial was of considerable importance‑‑‑Ocular evidence furnished by the injured witness as well as the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case‑‑‑Presence of eye‑witnesses at the spot was doubtful‑‑‑High Court's judgment maintaining the acquittal of accused on account of such inherent infirmities in the prosecution case was in consonance with the principles of administration of criminal justice‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. K.G. Salim, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Zahoor Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th October, 1993 ORDER ‑ FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J: ‑‑State appeal against the order of acquittal was dismissed by the learned High Court by its judgment dated 27‑4‑1992 against which leave to appeal is prayed for. It was contended by the learned counsel that the occurrence took place in a broad daylight and only one person was charged who was arrested by the police alongwith the weapon of offence, and the matter was promptly reported. That there was strong motive for commission of the offence and the medical evidence coupled with the opinion of the Arms Expert fully supported the prosecution case. After hearing the learned counsel and perusal of the record we are satisfied that the learned High Court has fully dealt with all these contentions now raised before us. There is no denial of the fact that the deceased who was a proclaimed offender was found present at the place of occurrence and the information of his presence was given to the police on Govt. duty. Such information could not have been given to the police by any other person than the one who knew him. It is also in the evidence that on getting the information the police party was trying to arrest the deceased who wanted to escape towards a Van where his other companions were waiting for him. The police, therefore, chased the deceased and they were joined by others who were present at the spat. It is also in the evidence that there ensued cross firing. The prosecution case is that the respondent was apprehended at _the spot with a pistol which was taken into possession through a recovery memo Exh.PC in presence of the marginal witnesses. That the pistol was of .30 bore Pak‑made bearing No.4071944. However, according to recovery memo Exh.P4 the pistol sealed into a parcel and sent to the Arms Expert was .30 bore China‑made bearing No.45071944. Discrepancy in the number of the pistol in the two memos is of considerable importance and has not been clarified by the prosecution at the trial. The Courts below, therefore, rightly discarded this piece of evidence. The ocular evidence furnished by Khewa Din F.C., who also sustained injury in the occurrence, does not support the prosecution case in attributing his injury to the accused respondent. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. The presence of Muqadar Shah H.C. (P.W3) and Islam Shah, A.S.I. (P.W.4) at the spot has been doubted by the learned High Court giving cogent reason for it. The judgment of the learned High Court, therefore, on account of these inherent infirmities in the prosecution case, is in consonance with the principle of administering criminal justice. No case has been made out for leave to appeal. This petition, therefore, is dismissed. N.H.Q,/A‑1114/S Leave refused