1990 PLP 1134 (SCMR)

M. Yasin Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant. Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State. Date of hearing: 11th December, 1989. ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑‑Allah Yar appellant, his brother Muhammad Yar and three others were charged under sections 307/149 and 148 P.P.C. and after trial convicted as such by the Magistrate 1st Class, Okara. All of them were sentenced to one year's R.I. under section 148 P.P.C. and to four years' R.I. under section 307 P.P.C. A fine of Rs.1,000 was also imposed on each' of them, out of which Rs.4,000 was ordered to be paid to Sharif and Jehangir, the two injured witnesses. Their appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, on 13‑8‑1981. On revision to the High Court, Muhammad Yar and three others were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt but the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 307 P.P.C. was maintained vide judgment dated 24‑11‑1981.

2. Leave was granted to re‑appraise the evidence.

3. Evidence in this case has been gone through with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant. Argument of the learned counsel for the parties for and against the appeal has also been heard. We think, as the case stands, benefit of doubt can very well be extended to the appellant as well. The F.I.R. in this case has been lodged after a considerable delay and that too after the medical examination of the injured witnesses twice, yet we see that there is a great discrepancy between the F.I.R. and the medico‑legal report. In the F.I.R. the appellant has been shown to be armed with a dang and the role attributed to him also was that he inflicted injuries on the two witnesses with a dang. The medico‑legal reports, however, show that the two injured witnesses, namely, Sharif and Jehangir, have a number of injuries caused with sharp‑edged weapon. Though at the trial the two injured witnesses and Hashim (P.W. 5) tried to bring their version of the occurrence in consonance with the medical report deposing that the appellant was armed with a hatchet and had inflicted blows with the same, but then it was too late in the day in that the damage had already been done. The version of the incident in the F.I.R. and at the trial has created a doubt in our mind about the veracity of the above‑said witnesses. Further, the ocular evidence has not at all been supported by any other corroborative evidence in that only a dang has been recovered from the possession of the appellant and that too has no stains of blood on it. 3‑A. The view that we take in the matter, therefore, is that the case of the prosecution is not free from doubt. The appeal is, therefore, accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the delict. The appellant is already on bail and the bail bonds are discharged. N.H.Q./A‑679/S Appeal accepted.