THE STATE Versus MAHMOOD ALAM

RIAZ AHMAD, J.‑‑ This appeal has been directed to assail the acquittal of all the respondents on the charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The respondents were tried under the aforesaid charge but the learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence arrived at the conclusion that it was a case of free fight and, therefore, each of the persons participating in the commission of offence was responsible for his own act.

2. Acting upon the principle of individual liability, the respondent Muhammad Akram was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year under section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code plus a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default thereof, to suffer six months' R.I. The respondent No. 5 Muhammad Saleem was convicted on the charge under section 304, Part 11, P.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years plus of fine of Rs.5,000 in default thereof' to suffer one year R.I. while respondent No. 8 Muhammad Nawaz was found guilty on the charge under section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code and was accordingly sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years plus a fine (if Rs. 2,000 in default thereof to suffer six months, R.I. The rest of the respondents were acquitted. Through this appeal, the acquittal on the charge under section 302, P.P.C. has been assailed and it is prayed that all the respondents be convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

3. We have carefully perused the record and we have also heard the learned Assistant Advocate‑General. In this case, two sets of eye‑witnesses were produced; one injured and the other who had only seen the occurrence. The learned Trial Judge after appraising the evidence found that both the sets of witnesses were inimical and had motive to falsely implicate the respondents. We have perused the record and we have no hesitation to subscribe to the view formed by the learned Trial Judge. In fact, the learned Trial Judge after assessing the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as after analysing the defence version reconstructed the entire scene of occurrence. Muhammad Saleem respondent was found to have caused fatal injury to the deceased and in the opinion of the learned Trial Judge, P.W. Mubarak Ali cannot be disbelieved because Mubarak Ali P.W. could not have allowed the real culprits to go scot free and that is why, he was convicted under section 304, Part 11 of the Pakistan Penal Code. In our view, the prosecution evidence is based upon cogent grounds and in accord with the judicial principles laid down to govern it. Merely because another view of the evidence can be formed has never been considered as a ground to interfere in the acquittal. Accordingly, we find no merits in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

S.A./S‑299/L Acquittal maintained.