SHAHID and 2 others Versus THE STATE and another

ORDER

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby order of their acquittal passed by the trial Court was set aside and the case was remanded to the learned trial Court for retrial.

2.According to the prosecution on 1-6-1982 the complainant was present at a metalled road alongwith one Muhammad Waris at Basti Kothewala known as Multan Budhla Road. The petitioners were also present on the north side of this road. At about 6-00 p.m. Muhammad Afzal deceased passed through that way when the petitioners stood up and Shahid took out .12 bore revolver from the right Dub while Abdul Hameed whipped out .12 bore pistol from his right Dub. Zafar signalled the deceased to put brake to the motorcycle. All the three petitioners threw him down from the motorcycle raising a Lalkara to teach him a lesson for the incident of Eid day. Muhammad Afzal deceased ran towards south, but Zafar and Shahid accused chased him and stopped him from the front. Muhammad Afzal turned back and started running, but Hameed fired with his .12 bore pistol on his head from a distance of two Karams. After receiving two injuries Afzal ran towards the Katcha road leading to Tatepur raising alarm. He was overtaken by the accused at a distance of 26 Karams from the metalled road and they fired at him in the manner stated in the F.I.R. Which resulted in the death of Afzal. The learned trial Court acquitted the petitioners from the charge under section 302/34 P.P.C. Nazir Ahmed filed a revision petition against the said judgment which was accepted by the learned Judge in Chambers and the case was remanded for retrial.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned Judge did not consider that the judgment of the trial Court was neither result of complete misreading of evidence nor the same was due to perversity of the trial Court and, therefore, there was no legal justification for interference with it. The learned counsel by referring to paras. 8, 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment, contended that the learned Judge accepted the revision application against the acquittal mainly on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not given reasons of his own to disbelieve the ocular evidence and merely by reproducing the objections of the defence counsel proceeded to acquit the petitioners. According to the learned counsel the reasons given in the impugned judgment are based on misreading of evidence as the arguments of the defence counsel were discussed and finding was given by the learned trial Court. We grant leave to reappraise the evidence for safe administration of criminal justice. The proceedings before the learned trial Court shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal arising out of this petition.