Before R. K. M. Saker, J. C.

UMAR DIN-Complainant-Petitioner
versus
DIN GUL and others-Accused-Respondents

Criminal revision No. 5 of 1950, decided on 20th June 1950.
Petition for revision of an order of the Sub-Judge and Magistrate, 1st Class, Quetta, dated the 28Th December 1949 whereby the accused-respondents against whom a complaint had been lodged under section 302 Indian Penal Code were discharged under section 209 Criminal Procedure Code.
(a) Criminal trial-Murder charge-Death, homicidal or suicidal-Medical opinions confusing-Benefit of doubt.
Where several medical opinions have been expressed in the case, and the medical evidence is extremely confusing and gives no clear indication as to whether this was a case of suicide or homicide, there is considerable element of doubt regarding the cause of death, the question of the guilt of the accused would not arise. [p. 33].
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439¬Inter-ference by High Court in revision- When competent.
It is an accepted principle ;’of law that a High Court will not normally interfere in revisional proceedings with a finding of fact of a lower Court. Even if the lower Court had failed to appreciate the evidence properly this would normally he no ground for revision. It must be shown that there has been some substantial error either in law or that in the appreciation of evidence the lower Court had taken a completely perverse view.
Muhammad Ahmad, for Petitioner
Malik Karma Elahi, for Respondent.