1988 P Cr (PLP)

(2) Small swelling on the left thumb. The area was tender. Both the injuries were simple with blunt weapon. Dr. Khalid Hussain P.W.8 on 5‑9‑1982 at 10‑00 a.m. conducted the post‑mortem examination upon the dead body of Abdul Hameed and found the following injuries on his person:‑ (1) An incised wound 7 cm x 1 cm on the right occipital region of the skull, 4 cm away and outer to the right ear underlying bone was cut, membrane cut and brain injured, haemorrhage was present. (2) An incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm on the right middle neck muscle deep. (3) An incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm on the back of right shoulder, skin, muscle and shoulder girdle were cut. Wound was nearly parallel to the mid line of the body. Cuts on the shirt present. (4) An incised wound 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the back upper right arm, muscle deep. Cut on the shirt was present. (5) An incised wound 2 x 1 cm on the back upper right arm‑31 cm below the injury No.4, muscle deep. Cut was present on the shirt‑. (6) An incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm on the upper back right hand underlying bone was cut. (7) Multiple abrasions in an area of 9 cm x 5 cm on the front lower right chest. (8) Multiple abrasion in an area of 15 cm x 10 cm on the back of left shoulder. (9) Multiple abrasion in an area of 13 cm x 12 cm on the front of mid and lower left chest. (10) Multiple abrasion 11 cm x 6 cm on the lower back left arm and elbow. (11) Multiple abrasion 11 cm x 5 cm area on the front upper right leg. (12) Multiple abrasion 6 cm x 4 cm on the front upper left leg. (13) An abrasion 25 cm x 3 cm on the front and sides of neck upper portion. In the opinion of the Doctor all the injuries on the person of the deceased were ante‑mortem. Injuries Nos.l to 6 were caused by sharp edged weapon. Rest were caused by blunt weapon. It was opined that death has occurred due to brain damage, haemorrhage and shock. Probable time between injuries and death was within one hour and between death and post‑mortem was within 24 hours.

6. Eye‑witness account in the case was provided by Muhammad Sharif P.W.6, Siraj Din P.W.7 and Muhammad Hussain P.W.9. The respondents while making statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Noor Din respondent submitted written statement marked 'A' and on the said written statement remaining two accused namely Feroze Din and Mst. Ghulam Fatima placed reliance. The plea taken by the respondents in the case is that the deceased had asked Noor Din to marry his daughter Mst. Kalsum with him. However, this request of the deceased was turned down by Noor Din, respondent on the ground that he was already married and further that he had no good character. On the fateful day, the respondent Mst. Ghulam Fatima was all alone in the house when the deceased went there and tried to outrage her modesty by grappling with her. In the meantime, Noor Din, respondent, came and asked the deceased to stop grappling with Mst. Ghulam Fatima but he did not care for him and inflicted injuries on the person of Noor Din, respondent. Feroze Din, respondent, also came at the spot and tried to intervene on which the deceased gave stick blows to him as well. The learned trial Court discarded the eye‑witness account provided by Muhammad Sharif P.W.6, Siraj Din P.W.7 and Muhammad Hussain P.W.9. He held that presence of the eye‑witnesses on the spot is not established. However, the witnesses have made improvements ,in their statements before the learned trial Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ocular account provided by the eye‑witnesses in the case is supported by the medical evidence. Learned counsel forcefully submitted that at least the evidence of Muhammad Sharif P.W.6 is independent and disinterested as such reliance could be placed on his evidence. He argued that the evidence of Muhammad Sharif alone is sufficient for the conviction of the respondents‑accused. It is next argued that the motive in order to establish the prosecution case is not always necessary. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is supported by very strong reasons. He stated that there is absolutely no evidence to connect the respondents with the commission of the crime. Learned counsel stated that it cannot be said that the judgment of acquittal is perverse or is based on conjectures and surmises.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very carefully. I am not convinced with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have considered the entire evidence deposed by Muhammad Ashraf P.W.6, Siraj Din P.W.7 and Muhammad Hussain P.W.9. The evidence of these witnesses does not at all inspire confidence. Admittedly, the witnesses do not reside in the village where the occurrence has taken place. Siraj Din P.W.7 and Muhammad Hussain P.W.9 are admittedly related to the deceased: It may be observed, that there are large number of inhabited houses around the place of occurrence but it is strange enough that the prosecution has not been able to produce a single witness from that place. This circumstance is against the very story of the prosecution. The prosecution has not been able to give any plausible explanation for the non‑production of the witnesses from the place of occurrence. The prosecution witnesses have made candid attempts to improve upon the version given in the F.I.R. by the complainant P.W.9. There are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. According to the contents of the F.I.R., the respondent Mst. Ghulam Fatima held the deceased by his hair at the time of occurrence but the evidence given by Siraj Din P.W.7 and Muhammad Hussain P.W.9 shows that when the deceased was subjected to hatchet and stick blows, she left the hair of the deceased. The eye‑witness account is not supported by the medical evidence. The medical evidence shows that the injuries have been caused by sharp‑edged weapon, however, the eye‑witnesses say that three injuries were inflicted with hatchet. Even according , the medical evidence there are no stick injuries on the person of the deceased. Injuries Nos.l to 13 were found as abrasions which could be the result of fall of the deceased on the ground. Doctor P.W.8 stated that the stick injuries will cause contusions. No injury has been found on the neck of the deceased ‑although the ocular account shows that the deceased was held with a Safa around his neck. Again, the medical evidence goes counter to the eye‑witness account., Thus, I am not satisfied with the prosecution evidence. The prosecution has wholly failed to prove the case against the accused‑respondents. The eye‑witnesses do not appear to be reliable. Their presence at the spot is highly doubtful. The medical evidence does not corroborate the eye‑witness account. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me as to what. injustice has been done in the case. He has not been able to show as to how the medical evidence has corroborated the evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses. No argument on this point was addressed by the learned counsel. The only other argument addressed at Bar was that the evidence of Muhammad Sharif P.W.6 is independent and as such his statement is enough to convict the respondents. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that Muhammad Sharif P.W.6 is not a witness from the locality and his evidence too was discarded by the learned trial Court. The judgment of the learned trial Court is very exhaustive and each point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner (complainant) has been attended to by him. The State did not file the appeal, perhaps in its wisdom there was no justification in challenging the judgment of acquittal having been passed by the learned trial Court.

9. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no substance in the revision petition which is hereby dismissed. S.G.D./M‑638/L Revision disallowed.