1969 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing : 16th October 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The four respondents in this case were jointly tried and convicted under sections 302/34, 325/34 and 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the respondent Mohammad Nawaz was also convicted under section 13 (e) of the Arms Ordinance. They were sentenced to transportation for life under section 302/34 P. P. C. and to further terms of rigorous imprison ment on the other counts but the sentences were made to run concurrently. The convicted persons appealed against their convictions and the present petitioner also applied to the High Court for the enhancement of the sentences. The High Court allowed the appeals of the respondents, dismissed the application of the petitioner and acquitted all the respondents. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that the High Court has not only misread the evidence but omitted to take into account certain evidence which went against the accused persons. It appears that the High Court was of the view that not only had the prosecution eye‑witnesses who were sworn enemies of the accused suppressed the fact that the accused persons had also some injuries on their persons but had also been influenced by the plea of self‑defence raised by the accused persons. It is contended that whilst it is true that two of the accused persons had between them 8 simple injuries it had not been noticed that on the complainant side one person had actually been killed and two others had been injured, that the number of injuries on the complainant side was much more and of a more grievous nature. If the story of the defence had been correct that the accused persons were attacked while they were passing by the Dhara of the complainant, then there would have been many more injuries on the accused persons and they would not have escaped with simple injuries. The High Court, it is further contended, has failed to notice that two of the acquitted persons namely, Ghaus and Abbas admitted their presence and that the place of the incident was fixed to be the doorway of the Dhara of the complainant by the recovery of blood‑stained earth from there. So far as Nawaz is concerned, although he denied his presence, the spear recovered at the instance of 1Jawaz had actually been found by the Serologist to be stained with human blood. So far as Siddiq is concerned, he was a servant of the respondent Ghaus. He was armed with a dang and dang blows have also been found to be inflicted upon the deceased. The prosecution witnesses bore no grudge against him and, therefore, there was no reason for them to falsely implicate him. It is, therefore, contended with some force that the High Court had committed a grave miscarriage of justice by acquitting the accused persons on purely speculative grounds which were not supported by the evidence. Three of the prosecution witnesses were furthermore, actually injured in the course of the same incident. So, at least, their presence at the place could not be doubted. These contentions appear to us to be not entirely without substance, for, there are certain features in this case which appear not to have received due consideration this is a fit case, there fore, in which leave to appeal should be granted to consider whether the acquittal is based upon principles consistent with the safe dispensation of criminal justice. Let non‑bailable warrants be issued against the respondent Mohammad Nawaz but only bailable warrants against the rest, returnable before the District Magistrate, Sheikhupura. Leave granted.