1986 PLP 2445 (MLD)

(1) Lacerated wound 1.5 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. x skin deep top of head right side. (2) Lacerated wound 1 c. m. x 1/4 c.m. x skin deep top of head left side. Injuries were simple caused by blunt weapon within the duration of 12 to 24 hours. On the same day he examined Mst. Akbari Begum P.W. and found the following injuries on her person: (1) Contusion 4 c. m. x 4 c. m. on top of head. (2) Contusion 6 c. m. x 4 c. m. back of right fore arm of lower part. Injuries were simple caused by blunt weapon within the duration of 12 to 24 hours. On the same day he examined Mst. Surraya and found the following injury on her person: Lacerated wound 2 c. m. x 1/4 c. m. x skin deep top of head left side. The injury was simple caused by blunt weapon within the duration of 12 to 24 hours. On the same day, he examined Muhammad Hanif appellant and found the following injuries on his person: (1) Contusion 4 c. m. x 1 c. m. on the left shoulder. (2) An. abrasion 1.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. on right knee. (3) An abrasion 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. on the right leg. Injuries were simple in nature caused by blunt weapon within the duration of 12 to 24 hours. He also examined Akbar accused and found one simple blunt weapon injury on his person. Three simple blunt weapon injuries were found on the person of Nur Muhammad while four blunt weapon simple injuries were found on the person of Mst. Bhagan wife of Nur Muhammad.

7. The accused denied the prosecution allegations. Muhammad Hanif appellant denied that Mst. Surraya Bibi and Mst. Khurshid Bibi had quarrelled with each other on the turn of making loaves and his co‑accused Nazir gave her a stick blow on her head and that she went weeping to her house. He also denied having dragged the dead body of Saddique deceased to his house and bolted the door from inside. He, however, admitted that the dead body was recovered from his house while it was lying on a cot. As regards his involvement in the case the following detailed statement was given by him: "Mst. Surriya Bibi daughter of Muhammad Siddique had a quarrel with Mst. Bhagan wife of Noor Muhammad accused at the Tandoor of Raj Bibi wife of Bashir, Surriya Bibi abused Bhagan on which Nazir son of Noor Muhammad gave a beating to her. To take a revenge of this incident Ghulam Qadir, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Siddique, Mst. Akbari, Muhammad Aslam and Sharif came to our house to attack us. At that time, Ghulam Qadir, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Aslam and Sharif were armed with Sotas, whereas Muhammad Siddique was armed with a hatchet. These people started giving Lalkaras outside our house when we came out, they started abusing us. On our protest all of them attacked us. They injured Mst. Baghan, Noor Muhammad, Akbar, Rashid and myself. We ran away in my house to save our lives and closed the door opened. The complainant party entered my house. Muhammad Siddique deceased was leading them. He was swinging his hatchet and the assailants were saying that they will teach us a lesson for insulting the daughter of big landlords i.e. Mst. Surriya. At that time to save the lives of all of my relatives present there I fired with my rifle which hit Muhammad Siddique. Muhammad Siddique fell down inside my house. All other assailants ran away from there. We informed the police who came there and took the possession of the dead body from my house. We were also arrested at that time from my house. This complete case is a false case. We are poor people and had been falsely involved by the complainant party who are big landlords. The complainant party was inimical to us because we had taken the possession of agricultural land of Nazir Hussain allottee from the complainant party. I hereby tender the copy of Khasra Girdawari as Exh. D.J, and Exh. D.J. /1." He further stated that the complainant party had previous enmity with them because they had taken the possession of agricultural land belonging to Nazir Hussain allottee which was previously cultivated by the complainant party." Abdul Rashid, Akbar and Noor Muhammad also made similar statements. Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Bashir denied their presence at the spot and stated to have been falsely involved on the ground of their relationship and Muhammad Hanif and other accused. None of the accused led any evidence in defence.

8. The prosecution examined Ghulam Qadir P.W.7 Mst. Akbari P.W.5 and Muhammad Ashraf P.W.9 as eye‑witnesses. Mst. Surrya Bibi P.W.4 and Mst. Akbari P.W.8 also deposed about the motive.

9. The trial Court disbelieved the motive, ocular testimony and held that the defence version put forward by Hanif was more plausible as compared with the prosecution story. The trial Court observed that Muhammad Hanif might have fired at Siddique deceased when he entered into his house after breaking open the outer door in a furious mood. The participation of Bashir and Nazir accused was considered doubtful as they had not received any injury at the time of occurrence so by giving the benefit of doubt they were acquitted. Muhammad Hanif was found to have exceeded the right of self‑defence by firing with a rifle at him when he was swinging his hatchet in a furious mood and in consequence was convicted under section 304, Part I. Noor Muhammad Akbar and Rashid were acquitted because for causing simple injuries to the P.Ws. they were not found to have exceeded the right of self -defence.

10. The previous quarrel taking place between Mst. Surraya Bibi, daughter of Muhammad Siddique, and Mst. Baghan wife of Noor Muhammad accused over the turn of making loaves at the Tandoor has not been denied by either party. It is also not denied by the accused that Mst. Surraya Bibi was beaten by Nazir brother of Mst. Khurshid Bibi. The prosecution case is that the complainant party had gone to the house of Muhammad Hanif accused for making a complaint where Nazir Ahmad accused had gone after inflicting injuries to Mst. Surraya Bibi and when they were about 5/6 Karams away the accused came there and injured them with Dangs. Muhammad Hanif who' carried a gun fired at Siddique deceased. According to Ghulam Qadir P.W.7 only Siddique deceased was holding a Soti while all others were empty handed and the deceased was swinging the Soti around him when the accused were causing injuries to the complainant party as a result of which some of the accused were also injured but the medical evidence belies the prosecution case because three injuries were found on the person of Muhammad Hanif appellant, Akbar and Nur Muhammad accused while one injury was found on the person of Rashid accused. As against this, the version put forward by the accused side is that the complainant party had come prepared while armed with sticks to take the revenge of the beating given to Mst. Surraya Bibi daughter of Muhammad Siddique deceased and niece of Ghulam Qadir complainant and when they ran into their house to save their lives and closed their door the complainant party started giving blows at the door with their Sotas and hatchet on which the door was opened and they entered the house and the deceased was beating them by swinging his hatchet and they were declaring that they would teach them a lesson for insulting Mst. Surraya Bibi. According to the appellant, he fired with his rifle to save his own life as well as the life of his relatives present there hitting Muhammad Siddique who ran away leaving the dead body there. The recovery of the dead body from the house of Muhammad Hanif appellant and blood‑stained broken wooden shutters of the door of his house lends support to the defence plea. The appellant and his relatives after receiving the injuries at the hands of the deceased and their companions could reasonably apprehend further harm and could rightly act in self‑defence in protecting their lives. Muhammad Hanif, Akbar, Noor Muhammad and Rashid were found injured during the occurrence. Muhammad Hanif who possessed a licensed rifle cannot be said to have exceeded the right of self‑defence by firing a single shot to save himself and his relatives from the complainant party who according to the evidence were in furious mood and had gone to avenge the insult meted out to them by the beating given to their female relation, namely, Mst. Surraya Bibi. As the appellant could reasonably expect grievous injury or death at the hands of the complainant party, therefore, they could defend themselves by repelling the attack. In this view of the matter the act of Muhammad Hanif appellant would be clearly protected and he cannot be skid to have exceeded that right. The complainant party who had come to his house and ha not only threatened to attack them but had actually done so could be expected to give further harm to the appellant and his companions who were thus legally entitled to protect them against the attack launched on them. Since the accused party had acted in the exercise of their right of self‑defence, they are entitled to acquittal. The trial Court was thus justified to acquit Rashid, Muhammad Bashir and Nazir on the ground of right of private defence. The same benefit was also available to Muhammad Hanif appellant and since he for the reasons stated above had not exceeded the right of self‑defence he is also entitled to acquittal. I, therefore, accept his appeal, set aside his conviction and sentence and acquit him of the charge. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. For the reasons discussed above, the revision fails and is dismissed accordingly. S. A. Appeal accepted.