Penal Code (XLV of 1860)﷓﷓﷓ (PLP)

10. Medical account on record has been furnished by the statement of P.W.1 Dr. Gulzar Muhammad Khan who on 14-12-1988 medically examined P.W.4 Abdul Aziz and found a contusion 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the right side of the head over frontal area. The area was swollen. The injury was caused by blunt weapon and was kept under observation, and vide X-ray Exh.P.A./2, the fracture of the skull was seen in the skiagram. The injury was declared as grievous and dangerous to life. His report is Exh.P.A. /3. On the same day P.W.1 medically examined Manzoor Ahmad deceased in injured condition and had found the following injuries on his person:-- . (1)??????? A lacerated wound 3-1/4 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x bone deep on the left side of the head over frontal area. (2)??????? Lacerated wound 4-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x scalp deep on the frontal area 4 c,m. behind injury No.1. (3)??????? Lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x scalp deep over left side of the head over occipital area. All the injuries were kept under observation. The injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Exh.P.B. is the copy of medico-legal report. Injury No.2 was declared as grievous as there was fracture of the skull seen in the skiagram. Exh.P.B./3 is the opinion of the Doctor regarding the nature of injuries. On 22-12-1988 P.W.1 Dr. Gulzar Muhammad Khan conducted autopsy on the dead body of Manzoor Ahmad deceased and found three injuries on his person, as mentioned above. Skull of the deceased was fractpred under injury No.2. Scalp was injured vide injuries Nos, 2 and

3. There was extensive clotted blood under the scalp, skull and membrane. The brain was healthy. Fracture line was over the frontal area on both sides. After careful external and internal examination of the deceased, he was of the opinion that the death was caused due to intra-cranial haemorrhage caused by injury No.2, and injury No.2 individually was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and were ante-mortem. Probable time, that elapsed between injuries and death was about 8 days and between death and post-mortem was 7-1/2 hours. Exh.P.C. is the correct carbon copy of post-mortem report. P.W.1 on 14-12-1988 the same day medically examined Habibullah appellant and found the following injuries on his person:-- (1)??????? A shaped lacerated wound 6-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x scalp deep on the left side of the head over the frontal area. (2)??????? A contusion 4-1/2 c.m. on the back of left hand area was swollen. (3)??????? A contusion 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the middle third portion of left fore? arm. (4)??????? A contusion 14 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the back of right and left chest oblique. (5)??????? A lacerated wound 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x muscle deep on the web in between the little and the ring finger of left hand. Both fingers were swollen. (6)??????? A contusion 7 i;.m. x 2 c.m. on the back of left chest over the scapular area oblique. (7)??????? Lacerated wound 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x skin deep on the medial side of left leg over the middle third portion. (8)??????? Two lacerated wounds 4 c.m. apart from each other on the upper third portion of the left leg measuring 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. each. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon within the duration of 24 hours. Injury No.2 was declared grievous as there was fracture of first mata-carpal of left hand seen in skiagram. Injuries Nos.l, 3, 4, 5 were simple. Exh.P.F./2 was the opinion of the doctor, while Exh.P.F./3 was the X-ray report. On the same day P.W.1 medically examined Abdul Ghaffar appellant and found three injuries on his person, which were declared simple, caused with blunt weapon. On the same day the same doctor medically examined Mst. Ghulam Bibi, mother of the appellants and had found a lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x scalp deep on the frontal area over the mid line of the head oblique and complaint of pain on the back of neck, which was declared simple caused with blunt weapon.

11. The recoveries of hatchet P.3, stick P.4 and hatchet P.5 at the instance of Habibullah, Abdul Ghaffar and Abdul Sattar were not wedded and also disbelieved by the trial Court as the same were not stained with blood.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has urged before me that P.W.4 Abdul Aziz was injured during the occurrence and his presence at the relevant time cannot be doubted. No doubt P.W.4 Abdul Aziz was injured during the occurrence and his presence at the spot is established, but his statement cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by independent strong evidence. He is father of the deceased and has suppressed the fact of the receipt of injuries by appellants Habibullah, Abdul Ghaffar as well as their mother during the occurrence. P.W.10 Shabbir Hussain, A.S.I. specifically stated that the appellant Abdul Ghaffar had stated before him when he alongwith co-accused Habibullah and mother Ghulam Bibi met him at the gate of the hospital that they had been injured at the hands of the opposite party, but they had also suppressed the injuries caused by them on the person of the complainant party. The complainant as well as the accused party had not come with clean hands. Both parties had suppressed injuries on each other. Exh.D.C. is the statement of Habibullah appellant before P.W.10 which is clear on the point that he had suppressed the injuries caused by them to the complainant party.

13. The appellants have raised a specific plea that the complainant party launched aggression against them and injured Habibullah, Abdul Ghaffar and their mother Mst. Ghulam Bibi during the course of their attempt to break the Banna of their land in order to take possession illegally and forcibly. They had defended their property and person within their lawful right, and as a result the complainant party including the deceased sustained injuries. The case of the prosecution, if placed in juxtaposition with that of the defence, it has to be seen that in case of two versions which is to be accepted. The statements made by the P.Ws. have already been found not confidence inspiring and in such a case the statements of the appellants are to be believed in totality. P.W.2 Muhammad Jamil Patwari specifically stated that the Banna cut by P.W.7 Muhammad Arshad was a common Banna between the lands of the appellants and the complainant party. There was no previous enmity between the parties and both the parties were found to be armed from the evidence on record and the circumstances appearing in the case at the relevant time. They had suppressed the injuries on each other. The plea raised by the appellants is spelt A out from the evidence on record and the circumstances appearing in the case. As the prosecution evidence has been disbelieved, the statements of the appellants are to be believed in totality.

14. Pursuant to the above discussion, I am 9f the view that the appellants in the exercise of lawful right of defence of their property and person had caused injuries to the deceased and P.W.4 Abdul Aziz. Resultantly the appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charge. The appellants are in jail and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Connected Criminal Revision No.20 of 1991/BWP has no force and is dismissed. N.H.Q./H-99/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.