1988 P Cr (PLP)

Hafiz Ghulam Bari for the State. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1987. The petitioners, Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Bashir, Bahadar, Qadir, Muhammad Ashraf and Ata Muhammad, have filed this criminal revision petition under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. challenging their conviction and sentences vide the judgments dated 19‑8‑1987 and 17‑1‑1987 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat and the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Gujrat, whereby they were convicted under sections 354 and 506, P.P.C. Muhammad Azam. Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Ashraf were sentenced to one year's R.I. each under section 354, P.P.C. and one year's R.I. each under section 506 and Ata Muhammad, Bahadar and Qadir were sentenced to six' months' S.I. each under section 354, P.P.C. and six months' S.I. each under section 506, P.P.C. All the sentences awarded to the petitioners were ordered to run concurrently. The conviction and sentences of the petitioners were confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat by rejecting their appeal.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Mst. Sardar Begum filed a complaint under section 323/ 354/342/506/148/149, P.P.C. before the learned trial Court under the allegations that the petitioners while armed with deadly weapons assaulted the complainant and her daughter Mst. Bushra and also issued threats to them. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant and her daughter Mst. Bushra belong to Jaaferia sect of Islam. It is alleged that the real sister of the husband of the complainant Mst. Hussain Bibi had died about five years ago and that the daughter of the complainant Mst. Bushra is the legal heir of the deceased to inherit her property. It is further alleged that the petitioners‑accused being highly influential persons got a mutation of inheritance sanctioned in their favour and the real heir Mst. Bushra was ignored on account that she belongs to Sunni sect of Islam. The above referred mutation was challenged by way of an appeal which appeal later on was dismissed with a direction that the complainant should approach the competent Civil Court. It is further alleged that the complainant filed a civil suit and has obtained stay order from the Court and that the complainant was in the physical possession of the land in question. It is stated that the petitioners‑accused were got served with a great difficulty and as a result thereof they were annoyed on their being served with summons. The petitioners‑accused are alleged to have harvested the crop of the complainant and tried to plough the land by using their Tractor. The complainant as well as their daughter Mst. Bushra laid themselves before the Tractor whereupon the petitioners slapped the ladies and physically lifted and took them to their Dera and confined them in their house, by bolting the door from outside. It is further alleged that the petitioners‑accused hurled threats upon the complainant party that they will be done to death and buried inside the room. It is further stated that the petitioners displayed their hatchets and others arms. The complainant in order to prove her case against the accused‑petitioners produced Raja Shukar Muhammad PW1, Niaz Ali PW2 and Mst. Sardar Bibi PW

3. The eye‑witnesses supported the complainant by making statements on oath. Raja Shukar Muhammad PW 1 stated that he came down from the bus in village Shadiwal and saw that the petitioners were ploughing the land with their Tractor and the complainant and her daughter were protesting and were saying that the accused‑petitioners should not plough their land with their Tractor. However, the accused‑petitioners answered the complainant party and gave thrashing to them so much so that the clothes of the complainant and her daughter were torn. He further stated that the accused‑petitioners issued threats that the complainant as well as her daughter will be killed. In cross‑examination the witness admitted that several other persons also got down from the bus alongwith him. However, at the place of occurrence he and other eye‑witness went only. He conceded that he never went to village Shadiwal before. Similar is the statement made by Niaz Ali PW.2. Mst. Sardar Bibi, complainant PW3, stated that the petitioner Muhammad Azam was armed with a gun. In cross‑examination, she stated that the matter was reported to the Police Station and that she was also medically examined but she conceded that she is not in possession of copies of the report made by her with the police and the medical certificate. She also conceded that nobody else except the two eye‑witnesses reached the place of occurrence. She denied the suggestion that in fact no occurrence had taken place. She admitted that there was a civil suit pending between the parties before the civil Court.

3. The accused‑petitioners while making statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and took plea that a false complaint has been lodged against them on account of civil litigation pending between the parties before the civil Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the only two eye‑witnesses namely, Raja Shukar Muhammad and Niaz Ali, PW1 and PW 2, are the chance witnesses and that they did not belong to village Shadiwal where the alleged occurrence took place. It is next contended that even according to the prosecution story several other persons got down from the bus but no other traveller except the two eye‑witnesses who are non‑residents of the village witnessed the occurrence. Learned counsel stated that neither the matter was reported to the police nor the complainant and her daughter were medically examined. The mere fact that the medical certificate was not produced will show that the complainant party was not subjected to beating. The learned counsel maintained that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the petitioners. Learned counsel urged that the offences under sections 304/354 and 506, PPC have not at all been proved by the production of any cogent and reliable evidence. Learned counsel stressed that on account of the civil litigation going on between the parties, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case so that the petitioners could come to favourable terms with the complainant party. The learned State counsel has half‑heartedly supported the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and hav?e perused the record very minutely. I am of the view that the prosecution has wholly failed to prove its case against the petitioners. The important ingredient of sections 354 and 506, PPC has not at all been proved by the prosecution. The only two eye‑witnesses, namely Raja Shukar Muhammad PW1 and Niaz Ali PW2 admittedly did nod belong to village Shadiwal where the occurrence had taken place. According to their own showing they are residents of the Gujrat city n and they had come alongwith other persons in a bus. It is strange enough that no other person except the two eye‑witnesses was attracted to the spot at the noise of the complainant party. It is possible that' many other persons belonging to village Shadiwal must have come by that bus on which the two eye‑witnesses came at the place of occurrence. Therefore, this was natural that other witnesses belonging to the locality must have seen the occurrence. I am not convinced about the presence of the two eye‑witnesses at the spot. The prosecution did not produce any other witness from the locality. They have not also given any sufficient explanation as to why other witnesses from the village were not available to witness the occurrence, After all this was a day time occurrence and must have been seen by a number of persons from the village. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the occurrence which has taken place in the day time should not be supported by any witness from the village. The eye‑witness account provided by Raja Shukar Muhammad PW1 and Niaz Ali PW2 is full of contradictions. Therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. Both the eye‑witnesses appear to be the clerks of some local lawyer and it is not difficult to procure the services of peoples like PW1 and PW2, to be eye‑witnesses in the cases like the one in hand. Even otherwise, the complainant has not been able to disclose neither in the complaint itself nor in her statement as to what was the date and time when the occurrence had taken place. The eye‑witnesses have stated that Mst. Sardar Begum and her daughter Mst. Bushra were beaten but they were not medically examined by any Doctor. If it were the true facts, the complainant and her daughter must have been medically examined and on the basis of the medical certificate a criminal case should have been registered with the concerned Police Station. It is conceded that the complainant is not in possession of any copy of the F.I.R., lodged by her with the Police Station Shadiwal. This shows that no occurrence in fact has taken place. This is the reason the matter was never reported to the police. It appears from the facts and circumstances that the complainant party perhaps wanted to put pressure on the petitioners so that they may come to a compromise with them in respect of the land for which litigation is going on between the parties.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and bring home the guilt to the petitioners, I, therefore, accept the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners and acquit them. The petitioners are on bail and they are discharged from their bail bonds. S.A. /M‑475/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? Revision accepted.