1989 PLP 2923 (MLD)

The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that petitioner Shah Muhammad was tried by Magistrate 1st Class Kasur, for an offence under section 307, P.P.C. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 8-3-1980, found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default six months' R.I. under section 307, P.P.C. He appealed against his conviction and sentence which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur on 23-7-1980. In the present revision the petitioner assails the judgment of the Courts below.

2. The prosecution story in brief as disclosed by Muhammad Shah P.W.1 is to the effect that on 7-5-1978 his sister Mst. Amina Bibi went to the village mosque to bring water. Petitioner Shah Muhammad was having a bath and on seeing Mst. Amina he came in front of her. Said Mst. Amina abused him and informed her brother as well. On the same day Iqbal and Muhammad Nawaz brothers of the first informant abused the petitioner. At about Peshiwela the same day said Iqbal and Nawaz were going in the village when the father and the sister of the petitioner abused them. After some time the petitioner came armed with a pistol and raised a Lalkara and fired at Iqbal but it did not hit him. On hearing the fire shot the first informant and his brother-in-law Muhammad Mukhtar came running to the spot. On seeing them the petitioner fired 2/3 ineffective shots and then ran away. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner side had got a case registered against the P.Ws. under section 325, P.P.C. before the registration of the present case, but on the same day. Submits that Iqbal Ahmed real brother of the first informant appeared as P.W.2 and stated that Muhammad Shan and Mukhtar P.Ws. met him the following day of the occurrence and then he informed them about the same. Argues that a crime empty from the spot was recovered but it was not sent to the Fire-arm Expert alongwith pistol recovered at the instance of the petitioners, for comparison, which indicates that the recovery was a fabrication. Attentions have been controverted by the learned State counsel.

3. I have heard learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The occurrence took place on 7-5-1978 at about 2 p.m. but the case -was not registered on 8-5-1978 at 8 a.m. The explanation given with regard to the delay in the registration of the case is that the petitioner had threatened the first informant with dire consequences if he reported the matter. I am afraid the explanation given is not convincing at all. The eye-witness account has been furnished by Muhammad Shan, Iqbal Ahmed, Muhammad Nawaz and Mukhtar P.Ws., 1, 2, 3 and 8 respectively. The witnesses have admitted that with regard to the same occurrence the accused side had also got a case registered against them under section 325, P.P.C. In these circumstances, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel that the witnesses are interested and inimical. Iqbal Ahmad P.W. in cross-examination had stated that Muhammad Shan and Mukhtar P.Ws.l and 8 came to him on the following day of the occurrence and he informed them about the occurrence. In these circumstances the statements of Shan Muhammad and Mukhtar P.Ws. 1 and 8 can safely be ruled out of consideration. As far as Iqbal and Nawaz P.Ws. 2 and 3 are concerned, they are real brothers and a case under section 325, P.P.C. with regard to the same occurrence was got registered prior in time by the petitioner side. Therefore, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel that they are interested and inimical and have made material improvements with which they were duly confronted. The witnesses can be relied upon only if their statements are corroborated by some independent evidence, which is not t available in the instant case. The prosecution case further becomes doubtful because it has neither produced the report of Fire-Arm Expert nor there is any explanation whether the crime empty recovered at the spot alongwith the pistol at the instance of the petitioner were sent for comparison or not. This fact also creates doubt in the prosecution case. Mst. Amina Bibi sister of the first informant was competent witness who could depose about the motive part of the occurrence, but for reasons best known to the prosecution, she was not produced. For what has been discussed above, I hold that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the, petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I accept the revision and set aside the conviction. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. N.H.Q./S-446/L Bail granted.