1998 P Cr (PLP)

2. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have challenged their conviction and sentences through this appeal.

3. Ikram P.W.2 got recorded his statement Exh.P.A at Adda Mochiwala on 1-12-90 at 5-30 p.m. It was recorded by Zahoor Ahmed, A.S.-I. arid sent to the Police Station Mochiwala where the formal F.I.R. was recorded by Mukhtar Ahmed, Head Constable on 1-12-1990 at 5-45 p.m. The occurrence took place on 30-11-90 at 4-00 p.m. in Killa No. 25, Square No.37 in Chak No.449/JB situated at a distance of 10 miles from the police station.

4. The motive as stated by the complainant is that on 9-4-84 Ahmed Bakhsh P.W.1 purchased land measuring 93 Kanals from one Sharif and an agreement deed was executed. This land was allotted to Sharif in the year 1972 and before allotment the land was in possession of Ahmed Bakhsh P.W. The said Sharif died during the process and subsequently this land was allotted to Sadiq son of Sharif who refused to give the land-to Ahmed Bakhsh P.W. which resulted in civil litigation. Sadiq son of Ahmed accused purchased this land from Sadiq son of Sharif and as a result of that the present occurrence took place.

5. Briefly the prosecution case is that on the day of occurrence Ikram P.W.2 and his father Ahmed Bakhsh injured P.W.1 were present in Killa No.25, Square No.37 and were busy in doing their agricultural chores. All of sudden Mst. Sughran armed with hatchet, Noor and Sadiq empty-handed and Ahmad appellant armed with Lathi appeared there. Sadiq raised Lalkara that Ahmed Bakhsh should be taught a lesson of not delivering the possession of the-land whereupon Sadiq and Noor caught hold of the complainant while Mst. Sughran gave hatchet blow on the head of Ahmed Bakhsh who fell down and thereafter Ahmed appellant gave Lathi blows to Ahmed Bakhsh P.W. which hit on 'a shoulder, left hand and loin thereafter he became unconscious. An alarm was raised which attracted Abid and Gulsher P.Ws. to the spot. The accused then left the spot alongwith their-weapons.

6. Ahmad Bakhsh P.W. was medically examined by Dr. Muhammad Mashkoor P.W.4 who found '8 injuries on his person. Out of which injuries Nos. l and 3 were with sharp-edged weapon on the right side of forehead and on the back of right forearm near the right wrist joint while injuries Nos.2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and. 8 were with blunt weapon and in his opinion only injury No. 1 was grievous while the others were simple.

7. On 9-12-1990 Ahmed accused was arrested while on 21-12-1990 Mss. Sughran was arrested and she produced hatchet at the time of her arrest.

8. The prosecution to prove its case produced four witnesses Ahmed Bakhsh injured P.W.1, Ikram P.W.2, Gulsher P.W.3 and Dr. Mashkoor PWA. Noor, Sadiq and Ahmed accused were declared innocent by the police and placed in column No.2 of the challan.

9. The accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Mst. Sughran in her-statement has stated that she had been falsely involved being a woman and that it has been deliberately done so that she could not pursue her civil suit and the witnesses have made false statements on account of their close relationship With each- other. Ahmed in his statement has stated that he has been falsely involved because of previous litigation and that presently the complainant party in order to keep their possession on the land and to hamper him in pursuing the civil suit. Both the accused opted to produce defence evidence and Sultan was examined as D.W.1 while Farid was examined as D.W1.

10. With the assistance of, the learned counsel for the appellants, I have minutely gone through the evidence and the record of the case has been perused. The learned counsel for the State has been heard at length. He has supported the judgment and prayed that the conviction and the sentences awarded to the appellants be upheld.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to the fact that Noor, Sadiq accused and Ahmed appellant were declared innocent, by the police and as such their presence or involvement in the present occurrence becomes doubtful: Thus, it is difficult to believe that a woman of the age of 50 years would alone in the presence of the P.Ws. give two hatchet blows to the injured and then escape from the spot. He has also drawn my attention to the fact that there is civil litigation pending between the parties on account of the land which the complainant -alleges to have purchased, and thus, with this background the testimony of the witnesses and the injured cannot be accepted without pinch of salt. Furthermore, Investigating Officer has not been examined nor the formal F.I.R. recorded at the police station has been proved. He has also contended that the defence evidence is plausible and more likely keeping in view the injuries suffered by the injured.

12. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. They appear to carry weight and it appears that the complainant party has roped in all those persons with whom they are having civil litigation. Noor accused is son of Mutali who is brother of-Ahmed while Sadiq is son of Ahmed and that it is very difficult to believe and digest that a sole woman would cause injuries and a person of 70 years would wield a Dang in the presence of younger persons. The appellants have faced the agony of trial, which protracted for a period of more than four years. The rigors of such a trial are a mental anguish for the accused and serves them a lesson, provided they are ready to learn, however, to my mind the defence is more plausible and inferable from the file. Thus, giving the benefit of doubt I accept the appeal of the appellants and acquit them of the charge. They are on bail vide order of this Court dated 3-3-1996. Both of them are discharged of their bail bonds. N.H.Q./S-123/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.