1989 PLP 4380 (MLD)

Muhammad Hanif Niazi for Petitioner. The facts leading to the filing of this Revision are that petitioner Inayat had got a case registered with Police Station Bhai Pheru on 16‑10‑1986 against the respondent Shaukat Ali under section 302 P.P.C. for the murder of his son Jamil Ahmad. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur vide his judgment, dated 2‑5‑1988 acquitted Shaukat Ali for the offence under section 302 P.P.C. but sentenced him under section 304 Part‑I P.P.C. to ten years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5000. The petitioner has assailed the judgment whereby respondent Shaukat Ali was acquitted. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the respondent is proved beyond any doubt, therefore, his acquittal under section 302 P.P.C is bad in law. Submits that the eye‑witness account was natural and the learned trial Court erred in law by not relying upon it.

2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The occurrence in the case has been admitted by the prosecution as well as the defence. According to the defence version, on the day of incident the deceased caught hold of the respondent Shaukat Ali and had an altercation with him, therefore, in his self‑defence he picked up a Chhuri from shop of a barber and caused an injury with it to him, with the result that he died. I have gone through the evidence of Inayat Ali father of the deceased, and Ahmad Ali, PWs‑3 and 4, respectively. As far as Inayat PW is concerned, he stated that he witnessed the occurrence while he was coming home. He further stated that at the time of occurrence he was talking to Ahmad Ali, PW. Inayat PW was vegetable vendor, and at the time of occurrence it was not possible for him to be present at that place. This finds corroboration from the fact that the occurrence took place at 5 p.m. whereas the statement of the first informant was recorded at 9 p.m. This witness also admitted that the police came to the spot at 8 p.m. or 8.30 p.m. yet the complaint was recorded at 9 p.m. His presence at the spot is doubtful. Similarly Ahmad Ali in cross‑examination had to admit that his residence was 20/25 acres from the place of occurrence. He also admitted that he owned his land 30/4() acres from the spot. The reason given by him for his presence at the spot is that he wanted to purchase khal for his buffalo but he neither produced any shopkeeper nor could disclose from which shop the same was to be purchased. It has come in evidence that at the place where the occurrence took place there were many shops. Not a single shop‑keeper was cited as a witness in support of prosecution's case. This causes a serious doubt. On the other hand, the assertion of the respondent that he was attacked and in order to save himself he caused an injury with a Chhurri, which he picked up from a barber's shop, appears to be more plausible. Learned trial Court has rightly held that though the respondent had the right of private defence, yet the same was exceeded. I have gone through the judgment impugned as well as the arguments of the learned counsel. I find cogent reasons have been given by the trial Court for arriving at the conclusion with regard to the guilt of the respondent under section 304 Part I, P.P.C. to which no exception can be taken. For what has been discussed above, I find no merit in the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. SA./I‑145/L Acquittal upheld.