1988 P Cr (PLP)

4. As per prosecution allegations, Noor Ahmad, the injured P.W. returned from Killi Jaimal Singh after the grinding of his wheat at a Kharas located at Killi Jaimal Singh, at about 5‑00 p.m and proceeded towards his locality i.e. Thatha Chadhran. On the outskirts of Killi Jaimal Singh near old ruins, Muhammad Anwar appellant while armed with hatchet emerged at the scene and declared that he would not allow Noor Ahmad to go alive and thereafter struck a hatchet blow which hit the bag of flour (Ata) being carried by Noor Ahmad on his head. Another blow with hatchet was repeated causing injury on the head of Noor Ahmad. Thereafter, he caused repeated injuries with hatchet on the right wrist and left wrist as also on the foot and neck of the injured P.W. He also dealt blows with hatchet on the back and buttocks of Noor Ahmad. On his alarm, Jafar (P.W.2) Khadim Hussain (P.W.3) and Muhammad (P.W.4) were attracted to the scene of occurrence. With their intervention, the assailant left the place of occurrence carrying away his hatchet with him. The injured P.W. was taken to the hospital at Renala Khurd where he was medically examined by P.W.5 Dr. Muhammad Siddique, vide medico‑legal report Exh . P . D .

5. The occurrence was, however, reported to the police on the third day i.e. on 5‑9‑1980 at 4‑30 p.m. by Noor Ahmad, the injured P.W. himself who got recorded his statement Exh.P.A. in the hospital. His statement was recorded by Muhammad Mazhar Iqbal (P.W.71, the then A.S.I. posted at Police Station Renala Khurd. On the basis of this statement, formal F.I.R. Exh . P.A./1 was recorded at the police station at 4‑40 p.m. by Muhammad Aslam, Muharrir (P.W.6).

6. During the course of investigation, hatchet P.2 was recovered from the appellant on 20th September, 1980 vide memo. Exh.P.C. which has been attested by Khadim Hussian and Jafar Ali, the aforementioned P.Ws. besides Muhammad Mazhar Iqbal, A.S.I. the Investigating Officer. In fact hatchet P.2 is alleged to have been produced by the appellant himself at the time of his arrest.

7. As already stated, Jafar Khadim Hussain and Muhammad, appeared at the trial as eye‑witnesses to furnish ocular account of the prosecution version besides Noor Ahmad (P.W.1) the injured P.W.

8. The appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and contended that he was innocent and had been falsely involved due to enmity. According to the appellant, some unknown persons caused injuries to Noor Ahmad, during the dark of a night but after deliberations for about three days, .a false case was got registered against the appellant

9. As already observed, four witnesses namely Noor Ahmad, the injured P.W. Jafar, Khadim Hussain and Muhammad, have testified at the trial as eye‑witnesses. Jafar and Khadim are brothers and first cousin respectively of Noor Ahmad, Muhammad of course is not related. A considered and careful analysis of the testimonies of these four eye‑witnesses leads to the conclusion that these witnesses have contradicted each other in respect of the material details of the occurrence. Noor Ahmad has stated that on the day of occurrence, it was his turn of water and his witnesses were going towards the distributory to irrigate his field when on his alarm they were attracted to the scene of occurrence. Jafar, Khadim Hussain and Muhammad, however, have stated that like many other persons of the village, they were going to close the breach of the feeder which according to some of them had occurred a few days back while according to others was caused 14/15 days back when they had the chance to witness the occurrence. According to Noor Ahmad. These witnesses reached the scene of occurrence after the appellant had already caused 9 injuries to him. The other witnesses have, however, deposed that within their presence, some of the injuries were caused. He (the injured) himself claimed that he became unconscious after he reached the hospital. Muhammad (P.W.) has stated that soon after receiving the injuries, he became unconscious.

10. It is a common ground between the parties that there is an established enmity on account of cross murder and attempt to commit murder cases between the parties. Jafar, Khadim and the complainant himself are closely related inter se and are proved enemies of the appellant. Possibility of false involvement of the appellant by these witnesses cannot be excluded. As regards Muhammad (P.W.) he too is a chance witness like Khadim and Jafar. He has contradicted the complainant as also the other co‑witnesses.

11. In the light of the above state of affairs of the ocular evidence which consists of the depositions of witnesses who are related to the complainant and are chance witnesses, this Court has always insisted upon independent corroboration which unfortunately is lacking in this case.

12. The alleged recovery of hatchet P.2 from the appellant on 20th September, 1980 i.e. a fortnight after the occurrence is not of much consequence inasmuch as the hatchet was not blood‑stained at the time of recovery and cannot be connected with the offence in any manner. Medical evidence also contradicts the prosecution version as furnished by the ocular evidence. According to the eye‑witnesses, the occurrence took place on 3‑5‑1980 at 5‑00 p.m. The eye‑witnesses have further stated that the appellant caused injuries on different parts of the body of Noor Ahmad with hatchet. It has not been explained in the F.I.R. that some of the injuries were caused by the handle of the hatchet or by wrong side of the blade of the hatchet. P.W.5 Dr. Muhammad Siddique has, however, opined in his medico‑legal report Exh.P.B. that probable duration of injuries was about seven hours. He medically examined Noon Ahmad, the injured P.W. on 4‑9‑1980 at 10‑00 a.m. As per his opinion the injuries might have been caused to Noor Ahmad at about 2/3‑00 a.m. on 4‑9‑1980 and not at 5‑00 p.m. on 3‑9‑1980. At the trial, the Medical Officer has tried to make an improvement by saying that in fact he examined Noor Ahmad at 10‑00 at night between 3rd and 4th September, 1980. This improvement stands contradicted by the contents of the medico‑legal report Exh.P.D. because in this report, date and hour of arrival of Noor Ahmad in hospital is recorded as 11‑30 p.m. on 3‑9‑1980. Obviously Noor Ahmad could not possibly be examined medically an hour before his arrival in the hospital. According to the testimony of Dr. Muhammad Siddique as also per contents of medico‑legal report Exh.P.D. 4 injuries caused by sharp‑edged weapon and 3 injuries caused by blunt weapon were noticed on the person of Noor Ahmad as a result of his medico‑legal examination. The eye witnesses have not furnished any plausible explanation about the injuries on the person of Noor Ahmad which were found to have been caused by blunt weapon.

13. Jafar Khan (P.W.2) the brother of Noor Ahmad, the injured P.W. produced an empty bag Exh.P.A before the Investigating Officer on 5‑9‑1980 which was secured vide memo. Exh.P.B. The prosecution version as disclosed by eye‑witnesses is that at the time of occurrence, the injured was carrying a bag of flour on his head and that the first blow of hatchet caused by the appellant hit the bag which fell down. As per contents of recovery memo. Exh.P.B. it was an empty bag of fertilizer and not of flour (Ata) which was produced by Jafar, the brother of the complainant before the police. Muhammad Mazhar Iqbal, A.S.I. (P.W.7) has also stated that an empty bag of ,fertilizer was produced before him by Jafar which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh .P.B .

14. Two days' delay in the lodging of the F.I.R., has not been explained. It has been observed by the learned trial Magistrate that since the complainant had received serious injuries and he became unconscious, therefore, he got recorded the F.I.R. two days after the occurrence after regaining his consciousness. In this manner, according to the learned trial Magistrate, the delay stands explained. These observations appear to be erroneous because it has been disclosed by Jafar (P.W.2), the real brother of the complainant, that he went to the police station on the day following the occurrence and narrated all the details to the Investigating Officer. It has also come on the record that the Investigating Officer came to know from Jafar that he was an eye‑witness. The case could be registered on the statement of Jafar. Muhammad Mazhar Iqbal, has not denied that he was intimated about the occurrence by Jafar on 4‑9‑1980 but Jafar told him that for registering the case, detailed statement would b made by his injured brother himself. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that two days' delay in the registration of case has been satisfactorily explained.

15. It is true that it is a daylight occurrence involving a single accused but in the light of the infirmities in the prosecution's case, as detailed above, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In this view of the matter, the otherwise findings recorded by the learned trial Magistrate cannot be upheld. The appeal is accordingly allowed while conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. He is directed to be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.

16. The criminal revision petition filed by the complainant is dismissed. M.Y.H./M‑789/L Appeal allowed.