2000 PLP 1013 (MLD)

(1) A lacerated wound 4 c. m. x 1/2 c. m. bone deep, bone exposed on front of head in the middle. (2) A lacerated wound 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. scalp deep, 1 c.m. right to injury No. l on the front of head. (3) A contusion mark 8 c.m. x 4 c.m. on back of right chest lower part. (4) A contusion mark 10 c.m: x 4 c.m. on back of right abdomen middle part. Injury No.l is Shujjah‑e‑Madiha. Injury No.2 is Shujjah‑e -Khafifah. Injuries Nos.3 and 4 were miscellaneous under section 337‑L

2. The duration of injuries was about 3 hours and all were caused by blunt weapon. On the same day and the same time, he medically examined Alamgir son of Rahim Bakhsh of the same Chak and found the following injuries on his body; (1) A lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m., bone deep, bone exposed on back of left hand. (2) A contused swelling 6 c. m. x 5 c.m. on back of left fore‑arm. Lower part. (3) A contusion mark 6 c:m. x 4 c.m. on front of left thigh middle part. Injury No. 1 was Ghair Jaifah Maddihah. Injury No.2 was kept under observation for X‑Ray. Injury No.3 was miscellaneous under section 337‑L.2. the duration of injuries was about 3 hours and all injuries were caused by blunt weapon. By Ch. Muhammad Qasim, Advocate on behalf of all the accused. Injuries Nos.3 to 7 of Sharafat Ali P.W. were not inflicted with brick bats. I have delivered the copies of aforesaid medico‑legal reports to Ashiq Ali immediately after completing those M.L.Rs. On 4‑10‑1996 I was on duty from 8‑00 a.m. to 2‑00 p.m. The injuries Nos.3 to 7 on the person of Sharafat Ali were not caused by a friendly hand. It is incorrect to suggest these could be caused by friendly hand. It is incorrect to suggest that I had very good relations with Ghulam Rassol brother of Sharafat etc. Volunteered. I do not know him. I do not know any Sughran Bibi and I also do not know if she is married in my Chak. It is further incorrect to suggest that injuries were inflicted with my consultation, and thereafter, I issued medico‑legal reports. D.W.2 Dr. Muhammad Javaid, Medical Officer an 4‑10‑1996 at 7‑25 p. m. was posted as Medical Officer at Allied Hospital, Faisalabad and on the same day, he medially examined Muhammad Naeem appellant and found the following injuries on his body :‑ (1) Multiple abrasions in area of 12 c.m. x 8 c.m. with swelling 10 c.m,. x 6 c.m. on the right fore‑arm.. (2) A lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 1/2 skin deep on front of right leg upper part. (3) Multiple abrasions in area of 20 c.m. x 6 c.m. on the medical side of the lower part of the right leg. (4) A contused swelling 8 c.m. x 6 c.m. on the outer side of the right ankle. (5) Multiple abrasions in area of 7 c.m. x 3 c.m. on the left leg other side lower part. (6). A lacerated wound 1 c.m. x 1/2.c.m. skin deep on the outer side of middle part of the left leg. (7) A contused swelling 6 c.m. x 6 c.m. on the outer side of left ankle. (8) A contused swelling 8 c.m. x 5 c.m. on the left cheek. (9) A contused swelling 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the inner side of the lower lip. (10) Complaint of pain on right buttock. Injuries Nos. l, 3, 4 and 7 were kept under observation for M. L. C. Injuries Nos.2 and 6 were Jurrah Ghair Jaifah Damiah. Injuries Nos.5 and 10 were 337‑L

2. Injuries Nos.8 and 9 were Shujjah‑e‑Khafifah. The probable duration of injuries was about 10 hours. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. By Ch. Muhammad Qasim, Advocate, on behalf of all the accused. The possibility of the injuries on the person of Naeem cannot be ruled out with 'Roras and Wattas'. 10. ‑ The statement of both the doctors would show that four persons including both the appellants also received injuries which have been suppressed by the prosecution during the course of investigation and also before the trial Court. As far as, recovery of gun is concerned, that was the licensed gun of Ashiq Ali, real uncle of Muhammad Naeem appellant. As far as, motive is, concerned, in our considered view, that was concocted one because no case of theft was ever registered against any of the appellants. If both the versions are put in juxtaposition, the version put forward by the appellants seems to the more plausible, convicting and natural one. Law gives the right to a person to defend himself, if he only apprehends a grievous injury on his person. In the instant case, as stated above, four persons on the side of the appellants were injured. Appellants have not exceeded their right of self‑defence. The investigation in this case was dishonest because the Investigating Officer besides the injuries on the side of the appellant did not register any case and appellants had to file a complaint. The Investigating Officer dishonestly even did not attach the X‑Ray of Muhammad Naeem appellant alongwith report under section 173, Cr.P.C. All the' witnesses produced by the prosecution are closely related inter se. Although the occurrence had taken in a busy place in an open bazar but not a single' independent witness has been produced by the prosecution to prove its case.

11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion; that the version put forward by the appellant is more plausible, convincing and natural one. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is accepted, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the learned trial Court is set aside. Death sentence awarded to both the appellants is not confirmed. Murder reference is replied in negative. Appellants be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Death sentence awarded to both the appellants is not confirmed. H. B. T./M‑81 /L Appeal accepted.