Qatl-e-amd and theft

Statements of two eye-witnesses claiming to be present at the scene of crime but they on their own admissions were chance witnesses and had admitted their enmity with accused persons

Both the witnesses could not reasonably explain their presence with deceased, rather their conduct ran against natural behaviour of normal human,. therefore, their testimonies were unbelievable

Prosecution witnesses were also belied by site plan wherein blood was taken up from ground and neither any cot having stained with blood was found at the spot by investigating officer nor the same was produced before him

Although where ocular account was disbelieved, recovered articles which carried corroborative value could not substantiate charge against accused because in absence of direct evidence, corroborative evidence by itself could not bring home charge of murder against accused

Conviction and sentence of accused persons was set aside and they were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Trial Court had rightly declared that the respondents/accused were in possession of the land in dispute; and it was the appellant/complainant party who had launched attack in order to take possession by force from the respondents, who had resisted their right of defence; and as a result of said aggression on the part of the appellant/complainant, said incident had taken place in which four persons had lost their lives; and two had received fire-arms injuries

Trial Court had come to definite conclusion on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties during the trial that complainant could not succeed in establishing their possession and the respondents/accused had a right to defend their possession over the said property

Story narrated by the appellant and other eye-witnesses was not believable

View adopted by the Trial Court was found to be based on the evidence on record

Acquittal of respondents/accused did not suffer from any illegality so as to call for interference of High Court with the impugned judgment

Trial Court had advanced valid and cogent reason for passing a finding of acquittal in favour of the respondents/accused and no legal justification existed to disturb the same

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed.

Judgment per incuriam can be only in which information in respect to previous decision along with proper legal assistance has been provided.