1986 PLP 2823 (MLD)

LEHRASAP KHAN, J.‑‑This criminal revision arises from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha whereby he on 3‑7‑1984 acquitted Ghulam Qadir and 12 other respondents of the charge under section 307/148/149, P.P.C.

2. The occurrence took place at 6‑30 p. m. on 6‑8‑1981 near village Abadi of Chak No. 93/G.B. at a distance of six miles from Police Station Bhagtanwala. The F.I.R. Exh. P.B. was lodged by Bashir Ahmad (P.W.2) on the same day at 10‑00 p.m. at the Police Station which was recorded by Abid Hussain S.I. (P.W.5.)

3. The motive as alleged by the prosecution was the protracted criminal litigation pending between the parties in various Courts. The immediate cause of the occurrence allegedly was that a day before the occurrence Bashir Ahmad complainant and others had caused injuries to Irfan Javed and others and a case was registered against Bashir Ahmad and others, so to take revenge of the attack on Irfan Javid, this occurrence.

4. As for the main occurrence, it has been stated at the eventful time, Bashir Ahmad (P.W.2) was present in his orchard. Latif Ahmad (P.W.4) was going to his house. When he reached near village Abadi and had just crossed over the pucca road, Ghulam Qadir respondent threw challenge to him shouting that latter will not be spared. On hearing the alarm, Bashir Ahmad ran towards Latif Ahmad. In the meantime Imran Javed and Mumtaz respondents armed with 12 bore guns came out from near the house of Bashir Ahmad, a Muslim Sheikh. Imran Javed fired a shot from his gun hitting Latif Ahmad on his head who fell down. Mumtaz respondent then fired a shot at Latif Ahmad which did not hit him. The occurrence was seen by Muhammad Sadiq (P.W.3) and Bashir Ahmad son of Muhammad Shafi (not produced). It was stated in the report that the complainant party had also fired at the accused party in self‑defence.

5. On 6‑8‑1981 Dr. Muhammad Saeed (P.W.1) examined Latif Ahmad P.W. He found the following injuries on his persons:- "(1) Lacerated wound of fire arm entry 1 c. m. x 1 c. m. on the left side of head 10 c.m. above left ear. (2) Lacerated wound of fire arm exit 1 c. m. x 1 c. m. on the top of head 5 c.m. above and medial to injury No.l. It was an exit wound." The injuries were caused by fire‑arm and were declared simple and self‑suffered.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses. Bashir Ahmad (P.W.2), Muhammad Sadiq (P.W.3) and Latif Ahmad (P.W.4) have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They supported the occurrence as detailed above. Dr. Muhammad Saeed has proved the medico‑legal report 'of the injuries of Latif Ahmad (P.W.4), Muhammad Sadiq S.I. (P.W.6) had also investigated the case. He found that 11 more persons had also participated in the occurrence alongwith Ghulam Qadir and others, accused named in the F.I.R. Riaz Ahmad Inspector, Crime Branch was examined as C.W.

7. When examined under section 342, Cr. P.C. the respondents denied all the incriminating circumstances. They gave their own version of the occurrence.

8. The learned trial Court having disbelieved the statements given by the eye‑witnesses has acquitted the respondents.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ complainant contended that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the respondents but the learned trial Court has acquitted them without legal and factual justification.

10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with him. We find that the trial Court has applied its conscious mind to the relevant evidence and has given sound and cogent reasons for rejecting the ocular account of the occurrence given by Bashir Ahmad (P.W.2), Muhammad Sadiq (P.W.3) and Latif Ahmad (P.W.4). The reasons given by the learned trial Court find support from the material on the file. On our independent assessment of the evidence, it' seems to us that Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Sadiq and Latif Ahmad are interested, partisan and inimical witnesses; that they were accused in the counter case of murder lodged by Ghulam Qadir respondent, that they have suppressed the injuries found on the person of Talib Ali deceased of the counter case; that the statements made by them also suffer from infirmities such as material contradictions and dishonest improvements; that the parties were involved in protracted criminal litigation and several cases were pending between them at the time of occurrence; and that the rule of prudence requires independent corroboration of the statements of the eye‑witnesses qua each respondent which we do not see in the case in hand. It is well‑settled that once an accused person is acquitted of the charge, then strong and exceptional grounds would be required for interference with the judgment of acquittal which are very much lacking in this case. For what has been said above, there being no merits, the petition is dismissed. S. A.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.