Judgment Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Acq. Appeal No. D –30 of 2013

Cr. Acq. Appeal No. D –33 of 2018

 

 

 

Date of hearing        :           12.11.2019.

 

 

Mr. Ubedullah Ghoto, Advocate for the appellant / complainant.

Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional Prosecutor General.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

 

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.–Through these Acquittal Appeals, appellant Sadique Ali Shah son of Fateh Ali Shah brother /legal heir of deceased Syed Mazher Ali Shah has impugned the judgment dated 26.02.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ubauro in Sessions case No. 395 of 2004 for offences under sections 302, 324, 34 and 295-B PPC, Crime No. 224/2004 of Police Station Daharki whereby respondent / accused Abdul Qayoom alias Chingoo was acquitted by the trial Court,  whereas case of absconding accused namely: Abdul Shakoor and Abdul Malik alias Kako was kept on dormant file. After acquittal of Abdul Qayoom, absconding accused surrendered before the trial Court and faced trial in the aforesaid crime and after regular trial in Sessions case No.395/2004 vide Judgment 25.01.2018 respondents /accused Abdul Sahkoor and Abdul Malik alias Kako were also acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Ghotki. The legal heir of deceased Syed Mazher Ali Shah namely Syed Sadique Ali shah has also filed another appeal against acquittal Appeal No. D-33 of 2018 dated 22.02.2018 after acquittal of the respondents /accused Abdul Shakoor and Abdul Malik alias Kako. By this single Judgment, we intend to decide aforesaid appeals against acquittal.

 

2.         Brief facts of the prosecution case, as reflected in the judgment of the trial Court, are that complainant Abdul Wahid son of Abdul Aziz bycaste Dahar came at police station Daharki and lodged FIR, wherein he alleged that about 03 years back one Abdul Jabbar son of Abdul Khalique Dahar was murdered and in revenge of that murder one Abdul Rehman son of Abdul Qadir was killed by Abdul Khalique and others, in that case said Abdul Khalique and others were challaned, due to that Abdul Shakoor and others were annoyed with complainant party and used to say them that as to why they are looking after and cultivating their lands and helping them in such case. On the fateful day, he along with his brother Wazeer Ali aged 55 years, Syed Mazher Ali Shah son of Syed Abdul Fateh Shah aged about 32 years, Hafiz Abdul Hafeez son of Ghulam Muhammad Banglani aged 42 years, Syed Fateh Ali son of Ibraheem Ali Shah, Ghulam Hussain Shah son of Syed Kabir Shah and Muhammad Ibraheem Arbi son of Dhani Bux Dahar after offering the prayer of “Taravih” were coming outside of Masjid, while electric bulbs and tube lights were on. It was about 2030 hours, they found accused 1) Abdul Shakoor, 2) Abdul Malik alias Kako both sons of Haji Abdul Qadir Dahar and 3) Abdul Qayoom alias Chingoo son of Abdul Fattah Dahar, armed with klashanikovs who are brothers and nephew of DSP Abdul Ghaffar Dahar, came there from their house situated adjacent to Masjid and made their entry in the Masjid. They while coming made straight fires upon complainant party with intention to kill them. In FIR complainant further alleged that fires made by accused Abdul Shakoor hit his brother Wazir Ali, the fires made by accused Abdul Malik hit  Mazher Ali Shah and the fires made by Abdul Qayoom hit Hafiz Abdul Hafeez Banglani, who raised cries and fallen in the Masjid. Thereafter all accused made their escape good. He further alleged that they saw his brother Wazeer Ali had sustained fire arm injuries on his waist, abdomen, chest, left shoulder and right arm whereas deceased Mazher Ali had sustained fire arm injuries on his both arms, back, left axilla and right hand toe, the blood was oozing from their injuries and they had died at the spot they also saw injured Hafiz Abdul Hafiz had sustained fire arm injury on his forehead and finger of left hand and from the injuries blood was oozing. Thereafter, he got removed injured Hafiz Abdul Hafiz Banglani to Taluka Hospital Daharki, for his immediate treatment and leaving P.Ws at dead body, went to police station Daharki where he lodged FIR.

3.         On the conclusion of the investigation, challan was submitted against all accused showing them absconders and after completing codal formalities they were declared Proclaimed Offenders. Thereafter one of the absconding accused namely Abdul Qayoom was arrested and was sent up to stand trial.  

4.         Trial Court framed the charge against arrested accused Abdul Qayoom at Exh.5 he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the trial, prosecution examined six (06) PWs and prosecution side was closed.

5.         Statement of accused Abdul Qayoom was recorded under Section 342, Cr. P.C in which accused claimed false implication in this case and denied the prosecution’s allegation. He did not examine himself on oath nor produced any witness in his defense.

6.         Learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and assessment of the evidence, by assigning sound reasons, acquitted the accused Abdul Qayoom vide judgment dated 26.02.2013, for the following reasons.

                       The most important witness complainant Abdul Wahid alleged in FIR that on the night of incident, they found accused complainant Abdul Shakoor made fire with KK which hit his brother Wazir Ali, the fires made by accused Abdul Malik hit Mazhar Ali Shah and fires made by accused  Abdul Qayoom hit Hafiz Abdul Hafeez Banglani, who raised cries and fallen in the Masjid. Thereafter,  all the accused made their escape good, but at the time off recording evidence he deposed that accused Abdul Shakoor, Abdul Malik and Abdul Qayoom came in to Masjid and they were armed with Kalashnikovs. They on coming in the Masjid started firing with Kalashnikovs. Abdul Shakoor fired at Hafizullah Banglani and fires of accused Abdul Malik hit Mazhar Ali Shah, after firing they run away. He himself belied his own version as given in FIR so also the version of other eye witnesses. He further deposed that he has compromised with the accused regarding with murder of Wazir Ali as such he did not intend to proceed with the case against accused Abdul Shakoor. Both eye witnesses have supported their earlier statements as given before police, but complainant and injured eye witness have given their different version, as the injured witness Hafiz Hafizullah deposed that about 2/3 years back this incident had taken place he was taken away in village Hafiz Suleman for reciting Holy Quran and Taravih Nimaz at that village due to Ramzan. According to him it was about 8-30 pm, he alongwith Wazir Ahmed, Mazhar Ali Shah were sitting in the Masjid and at that time electricity had gone and they were going to disperse, at that time three persons came and started firing at them. The testimony of both eye witnesses, Complainant and injured witness is not considered to be safe enough to record conviction and as such, they cannot be held to be trust worthy to convict the present accused solely on their  evidence, as the ocular evidence is pregnant with doubts settled  principles laid down by the Honourable apex court has respectfully held in case of Badshah Rehman alias Badshah vs. The State and another reported in 2011 P.Cr.L.J 113 by Honourable Pishawar High Court in plasitum ‘F’.  It is also established principle of criminal jurisprudence that single infirmity,creating reasonable doubt in prudent mind is sufficient for giving benefit or doubt to accused. Wisdom in this regard has been sought from the case of Riaz Maseeh alias Mithu v. the State 1995 SCMR 1730, Saeedullah v. Shah Nazar and others 2001 P.Cr.L.J. 1740 and Jan Alam v. the state and another 2004 P.Cr.L.J. 68."

            It has been held by Honourable Lahore High Court in case of Abdul Rehman alias Gagi and 2 others vs. the state reported in P.L.D 2011 Lahore 92, that "Prosecution had to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt; and if any doubt would arise in the circumstances of the case, its benefit would have to go to accused. Prosecution case being full of doubts, accused were entitled to the benefit of the same not as a matter of grace, but as a matter of right."

 

Another most important factor in this case is circumstantial evidence which is produced through Investigating officer SIP Nadir Ali Bhatti  (Exh.22), who on 19.10.2004 after receipt of FIR bearing crime No.224/2004 offences u/s 302, 324 PPC conducted investigation. According to him, he visited the place of wardat where he saw dead bodies of Mazhar Ali Shah and Wazir Ali Dahar, and from the place of occurrence he secured blood stained earth, Sindi cap, one Towel and seven empties of 7.62 bore lying at some distance from dead body of Mazhar Ali Shah. He also secured blood stained earth and nine empty bullets of 7.62 bore at some paces from the dead body of deceased Wazir Ali. According to him at same distance he saw blood lying on the earth, he collected blood and three empty cartridges from that place and prepared in quest report of both deceased persons,  then he handed over dead bodies to his poliçe staff for conducting post mortem, therefore, on pointation of complainant,  he saw marks of bullets available inside the Masjid, on walls as well as frame of "Sura-ul-Asir" and surat-ul-Qadir" and on cupboard in which "Holy Quran" was lying. He also secured four empty bullets lying scattered in the Masjid. He prepared such Mashirnama in presence of Zainul Abidin Shah and Jalal din Shah and then went to Taluka Hospital Daharki where he noted injuries of injured Hafiz Abdul Hafeez Banglani in presence of mashirs Shabir Ali Dahar and Mihar Ali Dahar and prepared such mashirnama, which he produced at Exh.22/A, then they came back at police station. On 20.10.2004 HC Muhammad Punhal brought clothes of deceased Mazher Ali Shah regarding hand over dead body to Fateh Ali Shah, he prepared such mashirnama in presence of same Mashirs, which was produced at Exh.22/B and PC Abdul Qadir brought clothes of deceased Wazir Ali Dahar and receipt regarding handover dead body to Abdul Wahid. He secured the same and prepared such mashrinama in presence of Mashirs, which was produced at Exh.22/C, thereafter, he handed over case papers to SIO Ali Hyder Rind for further investigation. In its corroboration prosecution has only led evidence of Mashir Jalaluddin Shah (Ex.20) who only supported the Mashrinama of place of wardat (Ex.22/A) and another Mashir is HC Muhammad Punhal Abbassi, (Ex. 12) who corroborated the version of I/O regarding production of last worn clothes of deceased Mazher ali Shah (Ex.12.B) and handing over dead body of deceased Mazher Ali Shah. The prosecution has not examined PC Abdul Qadir, who produced last worn clothes of deceased Wazir Ali Dahar, and mashirs Shabir Ali Dahar or Mihar Ali Dahar, to substantiate that Investigation Officer had actually noted injuries of injured Hafiz Abdul Hafeez Banglani and drawn such Mashirnama (Ex.22/A) or not, these Mashirs are not examined by the prosecution only on the fact that when injured himself has not supported the prosecution, then their examination is not necessary. Thus these laps on account of circumstantial evidence rendered the prosecution case highly doubtful. The accused in his statement recorded U/S 342 Cr.P.C has denied the allegations. In view of above circumstances the recovery of articles from place of incident were got attested through Jalaluddin Shah who is relative of deceased Syed Mazher Ali Shah is one of the interested witness. Nothwithstanding that the property so recovered from the place of incident was not got attested through an independent Mashir despite of admitted presence at scene of occurrence, therefore, I am of the humble view that the circumstantial evidence so collected by I/O is neither believeable nor trust worthy but entirely doubtful. It is a settled law that “ single infirmity if create reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable prudent person regarding the truth of charge would make whole case doubtful. Accused being most favourable child of law and every benefit of doubt would go to him regardless of fact whether he had taken such plea or not”. Reliance can be placed on 2002 P.Cr.L.J (Karachi) 450, 2002 PCr.L.J (Karahci 51 and 2012 Y.L.R 2026 Sindh. It is held by Honourable apex Court in case of Muhammad Akram v. The State reported in 2009 SCMR 230 that “--- Benefit of doubt---Principles—For giving the benefit of doubt it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt-----single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused makes him entitled to its benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right.”.

     For the aforesaid reasons, circumstances and in view of case laws referred above, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the present accused Abdul Qayoom beyond any shadow reasonable doubt and the contradictory evidence of I/O and Mashirs inspiring no confidence, therefore, I answer the point No.2 & 3 as doubtful.”

7.                     After acquittal of accused Abdul Qayoom, absconding accused Abdul Shakoor and Abdul Malik surrendered themselves before trial Court. Trial Court framed charge against both accused  in Sessions Case No.395 of 2004 at Exh.32. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the trial, prosecution examined ten (10) P.Ws and thereafter side of prosecution was closed.

8.                     Statements of accused Abdul Sahkoor and Abdul Malik alias Kako were recorded U/S 342 Cr.P.C, in which accused claimed false implication in this case and denied the prosecution’s allegations. They did not examine themselves on oath nor led any evidence in defense.

9   .                  Learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and assessment of the evidence vide Judgment dated 25.01.2018 acquitted accused Abdul Shakoor and Abdul Malik alias Kako for the following reasons.

 

“ Complainant Abdul Wahid deposed that about 11 years back at about 0830 pm, he, his brother Wazir Ahmed, Syed Mazhar Ali Shah, Haliz Habibullah Banglani having offered Isha prayer, they came out from the Masjid, three unidentified culprits did straight fires upon the persons, who were coming out from Masjid. At that time he was inside the Masjid. The above named persons left the Masjid. On firing he came out from Masjid and saw his brother Wazir Ahmed and Syed Mazhar Ali Shah were murdered and Hafiz Hafeezullah Banglani was lying in injured condition. Hafiz Hafizullah Banglani has not disclosed the name of any person, therefore, he went at P.S. and lodged FIR against Abdul Shakoor, Abdul Malik and others. He deposed that accused present in Court were not same. In cross-examination he deposed that he had not identified accused present in court at the time of incident but Hafiz Hafeezullah Banglani disclosed their names and on his instance he had given the names of accused in FIR.

PW Hafiz Hafizullah has deposed that on 19.10.2004 at 8:30 pm he alongwith Jamait coming out from Masjid, meanwhile three persons, their faces were muffled came at the outer door of Masjid, they all armed with KKs shots fired upon him, Mazhar Ali Shah and Wazir Khan, again deposed that prior to them the Jamait left the Masjid and when he, Wazir and Mazhar Shah were coming out from Masjid, three persons were standing outer door of the Masjid, he could not identify the persons who fire shot with their KKs upon them. Due to such incident he had sustained fire arm injuries on forehead and left arm and he fell down and became unconscious. Wazir Ahmed and Mazhar Shah also sustained fire arm injuries and they also fell down. He went unconscious. The villagers brought him in the Hospital as in door patient after passing 5/6 days he came into senses. After 15/20 days doctors discharged him from Hospital. Police not recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C neither he further know about this case. He has not implicated the accused present in the Court.

PW Ghulam Hussain Shah has deposed that on 19.10.2004 at 0830 . pm, in his presence accused Abdul Shakoor, Abdul Malik and Abdul Qayoom all armed with KKs came and started firing at them, fire of Abdul Shakoor hit to Wazir Ali, fire of Abdul Malik hit to Mazhar Ali and fire of Abdul Qayoom hit to Hafeezullah, they all fallen down, while accused after firing went away. Then they saw injured persons received multiple injuries on their bodies which are mentioned in the Mashirnama of injuries. They have been died. Hafeezullah sustained injuries and was lying injured. Complainant taken away injured to Daharki Hospital and lodged such FIR against the accused. They were made to sit near dead body. Police recorded his statement. He implicated the accused present in Court.

So far as, the circumstantial evidence is concerned perusal of record reflects that statement of ASI Khair Muhammad recorded at Exh.46 according to him PW Muhammad lbrahim alias Arbi has expired before recording his evidence, said ASI also stated that he came to know that Inspector Ali Hyder Rind expired due to his natural death.

 

Tapedar Ghulam Fareed examined who testified that he went at place of wardat and prepared such map which was produced in evidence as Exh.19-A.

ASI Nadir Ali in his evidence supported entire investigation conducted by him, regarding the visiting the place of incident, seeing dead bodies, securing blood stained earth, Sindhi cap. one towel and seven empty bullets of 7.62 bore and nine empty bullets lying beside the dead body of deceased Wazir Ali, secured three empty cartridges, prepared inquest report of both deceased persons, dispatched dead bodies to Hospital for their postmortem reports, he also saw marks of bullets inside the Masjid on walls, as well as on frame of Surat-ul-Asir and Surat-ul- Qadir and on cupboard in which Holy Quran was lying, he also secured four empty bullets from Masjid then he prepared such Mashirnama in presence of Mashirs namely Zaul Abidin Shah and Jallal Din Shah, which he saw Exh.20-A. He further deposed that thereafter, they returned back and went to Taluka Hospital Daharki, where he noted the injuries of injured Hafiz Hafeezullah Banglani in presence of Mashirs Shabir Ali and Mihar Ali Dahar, prepared it, which he saw as Exh.22-A. He further deposed that on 20.10.2004 he was available at P.S. Daharki where HC Muhammad Punhal brought the clothes of dead body of deceased Mazher Ali Shah and receipt regarding handing over dead body to Fateh Ali Shah. Thereafter, he prepared such Mashirnama in presence Mashirs, which he produced it as Exh.22-B. He further deposed that on the same day PC Abdul Qadir brought dead body of deceased wazir Ali and receipt regarding the handing over dead body to Abdul Wahid, he secured the same and prepared such Mashirnama in presence of same Mashirs. He saw Exh.22-C, he then handed over the case papers to SIO Ali Hyder Rind. The evidence of I.O supported by Mashir of place of wardal Syed Jalal Din Shah, according to him, Danishtnama of both the dead bodies were also prepared in their presence, which he saw Exhs.20-A to 20-C and deposed to be same so also attested by him and co-Mashir.

             Perusal of record reveals that SIP Gul Muhammad Bozdar, reportedly died, due to his natural death as per statement of process server HC Husain Bux Exh.51 dated 31.10.2017. Scarp bearer PC Abdul Qadir, examined, according to him, he after having conducting postmortem of deceased Wazir Ali handing over its dead body to Abdul Wahid complainant and obtained such receipt from him, already produced on record as Exh.21-A.

ASI Manzoor Ahmed being well conversant with the signature and handwriting of late SIP Gul Muhammad Bozdar as Exh.52, he saw FIR as Exh.9/A according to him, same is in the handwriting of SIP Gul Muhammad Bozdar and bearing signature of that SIP. ASI Manzoor Ahmed also examined being well conversant with the signature and handwriting of late SIO/Inspector Ali Hyder Rind, he saw 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs u/s 161 Cr.P.C as Exhs.24/B to D.

            I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the entire evidence available on record. Since the complainant in his IR stated regarding murder of his deceased brother Wazir Ali, deceased Mazhar Ali Shah and regarding injuries on the person of injured Hafiz Abdul Hafeez. lt is clearly slated by complainant in his evidence that on the night of incident his brother Wazir Ahmed, Syed Mazher Ali Shah, Hafiz Hafeezullah Banglani offered Isha prayer and when they came out from the Masjid, three unidentified culprits did straight fires upon the persons, who were coming out from Masjid. At that time he was inside the Masjid. The culprits left the Masjid.  On firing he came out from Masjid and saw his brother Wazeer Ahmed and Syed Mazhar Ali Shah were murdered and Hafiz Hafeezullah Banglani as lying in injured condition. According to him, Hafiz Hafizullah Banglani did not disclose the name of any person, therefore, he went at P.S. and lodged FIR against Abdul. Shakoor, Abdul Malik and others. He deposed that accused present in court were not same. Moreover, in cross-examination he further deposed that he had not identified accused present in court at the time of incident but Hafiz Hafeezullah Banglani disclosed their names and on his instance he had given the names of accused in FIR. PW Hafiz Hafizullah Banglani has supported the version of complainant and clearly stated that he went unconscious. The villagers brought him in the hospital as in door patient after passing 5/6 days he came into senses. After 15/20 days doctors discharged him from hospital. Police not recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C neither he further know about this case. He has not implicated the accused present in Court. Both these star witnesses have been declared hostile by learned state counsel and cross-examined but nothing favourable to the prosecution came on record. They did not connect the present accused with the alleged murder of two deceased persons and causing injuries to injured witness Hafiz Hafizullah Banglani.

            There appears sole evidence of one witness Ghulam Hussain Shah, according to him, he witnessed the incident and corroborated with his statement before police, but his evidence is not shatter with the ocular account as advanced by complainant and injured witness, rather resiled their earlier statements recorded before police. Moreover, no incriminated articles have been recovered from the possession of accused. The circumstantial evidence as discussed above inspiring no confidence. In the circumstances, discussed above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case against present accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt and it is well settled proposition of law that for giving benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If a simple circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused, then he will be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. This dictum is laid down in the case of Tariq Pervez vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345). Hence point under discussed is answered not proved as "DOUBTFUL".

 

10.                   Mr. Ubedullah Ghoto learned advocate for appellant mainly contended that eye witnesses namely Syed Fateh Ali Shah and Syed Ghulam Hussain Shah had deposed against the respondents and their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence despite that trial Court without appreciating the evidence in its prospective recorded acquittal. It is submitted that acquittal recorded by the trial Court was not legally justified and the impugned judgments are perverse and require interference of this Court. In support of he has relied upon the cases of Nazir Muhammad v. The State and another (2004 P.Cr.L.J 1684), Muhammad Akram vs. The State (2006 SCMR 1567), Sher Muhammad alias Shera vs. The State (PLJ 1997 Cr.C [Quetta] 102), Khalil Ahmed and others vs. The State (2012 P.Cr.L.J 1308), The State through Mehmood Ahmed Butt vs. Sharafuddin Sheikh and another (2013 SCMR 565), Allahdino and 2 others vs. The State (2018 P.Cr.L.J 200), Syed Tahir Shah and others vs. The State (2018 P.Cr.L.J 242),  Muhammad Siddique vs. The State (2018 SCMR 71).

11.       Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional Prosecutor General argued that complainant Abdul Wahid and injured /PW Hafizullah have not supported the case of prosecution and stated that some unknown assailants had fired upon deceased persons. He further argued that injured Hafizullah has also deposed that light was off at the time of incident and Additional P.G thus supported the judgment of the trial Court which are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and the same are according to settled principles of law.

12.       It is settled law that ordinary scope of acquittal appeal is considerably narrow and limited and obvious approach for dealing with the appeal against the conviction would be different and should be distinguished from the appeal against acquittal because presumption of double innocence of accused is attached to the order of acquittal. In case of Zaheer Din v. The State (1993 SCMR 1628), following guiding principles have been laid down for deciding an acquittal appeal in a criminal case:

However, notwithstanding the diversity of facts and circumstances of each case, amongst others, some of the important and consistently followed principles can be clearly visualized from the cited and other cases-law on, the question of setting aside an acquittal by this Court. They are as follows:--

(1)        In an appeal against acquittal the Supreme Court would not on principle ordinarily interfere and instead would give due weight and consideration to the findings of Court acquitting the accused. This approach is slightly different than that in an appeal against conviction when leave is granted only for reappraisement of evidence which then is undertaken so as to see that benefit of every reasonable doubt should be extended to the accused. This difference of approach is mainly conditioned by the fact that the acquittal carries with it the two well accepted presumptions: One initial, that, till found guilty, the accused is innocent; and two that again after the trial a Court below confirmed the assumption of innocence.

(2)        The acquittal will not carry the second presumption and will also thus lose the first one if on pints having conclusive effect on the end result the Court below: (a) disregarded material evidence; (b) misread such evidence; (c) received such evidence illegally.

(3)        In either case the well-known principles of reappraisement of evidence will have to be kept in view while examining the strength of the views expressed by the Court below. They will not be brushed aside lightly on mere assumptions keeping always in view that a departure from the normal principle must be necessitated by obligatory observations of some higher principle as noted above and for no other reason.

(4)        The Court would not interfere with acquittal merely because on reappraisal 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 visualized 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.

13.       In the recent judgment in the case of Zulfiqar Ali v. Imtiaz and others(2019 SCMR 1315), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

2.       According to the autopsy report, deceased was brought dead through a police constable and there is nothing on the record to even obliquely suggest witnesses’ presence in the hospital; there is no medico legal report to postulate hypothesis of arrival in the hospital in injured condition. The witnesses claimed to have come across the deceased and the assailants per chance while they were on way to Chak No.504/GB. There is a reference to M/s Zahoor Ahmed and Ali Sher, strangers to the accused as well as the witnesses, who had first seen the deceased lying critically injured at the canal bank and it is on the record that they escorted the deceased to the hospital. Ali Sher was cited as a witness, however, given up by the complainant. These aspects of the case conjointly lead the learned Judge-in-Chamber to view the occurrence as being un-witnessed so as to extend benefit of the doubt consequent thereupon. View taken by the learned Judge is a possible view, structured in evidence available on the record and as such not open to any legitimate exception. It is by now well-settled that acquittal once granted cannot be recalled merely on the possibility of a contra view. Unless, the impugned view is found on the fringes of impossibility, resulting into miscarriage of justice, freedom cannot be recalled. Criminal Appeal fails. Appeal dismissed.

14.                   We have carefully heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Judgments. The evidence of complainant Abdul Wahid and PW/injured Hafizullah is most relevant for just decision of the case. In the second trial Injured PW Hafizullah (P.W 5) has deposed that present incident took place at about 08.30 pm, at that time he along with Wazeer Ahmed, Mazher Ali were sitting in the mosque, at that time electricity was off, thereafter, firing started he went unconscious. He did not know anything of the matter that who had fired and he has not supported the case of prosecution. Evidence of complainant was also recorded during second trial, he has also not supported the case of prosecution. So far other eye witness namely Ghulam Hussain Shah is concerned, his presence in the mosque at the time of incident was doubtful for the reason that there was indiscriminate firing and empties have been secured from the place of vardat. Complainant did not receive any scratch which clearly shows that he was not present at the place of vardat. Trial Courts in the impugned judgments has assigned sound reasons for disbelieving the prosecution evidence. We have come to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove its case and Judgments of the trial Courts are neither perverse nor arbitrary and the same require no interference of this Court. View taken by the learned trial Courts is a possible view, structured in evidence available on record and as such not open to any legitimate exception. It is by now well settled that acquittal once granted cannot be recalled merely on the possibility of a contra view. Unless, impugned view is found on fringes of impossibility, resulting into miscarriage of justice, freedom cannot be recalled.

15.       This Criminal Acquittal Appeals are without merit and the same are dismissed.

 

 

 

J U D G E

 

 

                                                                               

                                                                                                J U D G E

 

 

Irfan/PA