1989 P Cr (PLP)

Arshad Mobin Anwari for Petitioner. R.A. Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th February, 1989. The petitioner, Budha Khan son of Hayat, has moved this criminal revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal of the respondents, Feroze Din, Liaqat (since died), Din Muhammad, Ashraf and Muhammad Hussain. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide his judgment dated 4‑2‑1979 proceeded to acquit all the abovesaid respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt.

2. On 7‑12‑1980, notices were sent to Din Muhammad and Liaqat, respondents only. Learned counsel for the parties are present and have been heard. The petitioner Budha Khan is also present in person and his statement has been recorded. It has been brought to my notice that the revision petition was dismissed to the extent of Feroze Din, Ashraf and Muhammad Hussain, respondents and that Liaqat respondent No. 2 has since been murdered. The petitioner Budha Khan has made a statement that he does not want to pursue the revision petition in hand and that he has pardoned the respondents.

3. Briefly stated the facts are that Liaqat son of Din Muhammad, now dead, Din Muhammad son of Khushi Muhammad, Feroze Din son of Shahab Din, Ashraf son of Baggu and Muhammad Hussain son of Allah Bakhsh, all residents of Atokay Awan were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore under section 148/302/307/149, P.P.C. on the allegation that they in the prosecution of their common object, on 25‑5‑1978 at about 7‑15 p.m. within the area of village Atokay Awan, District Lahore while armed with deadly weapons namely hatchet, gun and pistol formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and murdered Liaqat Ali, deceased and also murderous assault was made by them upon Muhammad Younas P.W. Rehmat Ali F.C. P.W.1, Faiz Ahmad Khan A.S.I. P. W. 2, Dr. Abdul Ghafoor Raza P. W. 3, Imtiaz Ahmad Bhatti P. W. 4, Muhammad Younas P. W. 5, Akber Ali P. W. 6, Inam Ali Draftsman P. W. 7, Khan Muhammad S.I. P. W. 8, Mushtaq Ahmad P. W. 9, Shah Muhammad P. W. 10 and Sh. Muhammad Saddique P. W. 11 were produced by the prosecution in order to prove its case against the respondents Nos. 1 to

5. Muhammad Younas P. W. 5 and Shah Muhammad P. W. 10 are the eye‑witnesses in the case. The evidence deposed by these eye witnesses has not been believed by the learned trial Court. It has been held by the learned trial Court that the evidence of Muhammad Younas P. W. 5 is interested A and further that his deposition is contradicted by the medical evidence. The learned trial Court further observed that no witness from the locality, where the occurrence took place, has been produced by the prosecution to prove its case. In short, the learned trial Court rejected the prosecution evidence and proceeded to acquit all the respondents.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I entirely agree with the findings of the learned trial Judge and the judgment of acquittal of the respondents is based on solid reasons. Further, it appears that the parties have entered into a compromise. The father of the deceased has himself appeared in Court and has made a statement before me B that he is no more interested in the prosecution of the criminal revision. The occurrence in the case took place as back as 25‑5‑1978 and the respondents were acquitted about 10 years back. The respondents were correctly acquitted. In the circumstances there is no substance in the revision petition which is accordingly I dismissed. M.Y.H./B‑136/L Petition dismissed.