1985 P Cr (PLP)

(1) A lacerated wound on the head 2" x x bone deep 3" above right ear. (2) Two contusions each 4" x 1" on back, left scapular area. (3) A thin incised wound 1" long on back on right ear pinna. Injury No.1 was kept under observation and the rest were simple. Later on, injury No.1 was declared grievous as there was a fracture line on right side of scalp.

3. At the trial four eye‑witnesses, namely, Abdullah, Ghulam Mustafa, Muhammad Hayat and Ghulam Hassan injured, supported the prosecution version.

4. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and contended that this false case had been brought in order to take forcible possession of their land.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the presence of Ghulam Mustafa complainant, Abdullah and Muhammad Hayat P.Ws. at the spot is not established. He further submits that the statements of the eye‑witnesses suffer from material discrepancies and they are closely related inter se and inimical towards the petitioners, therefore, their uncorroborated evidence was not at all sufficient to warrant the conviction. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submits that the conviction of the petitioners is well‑founded. He submits that in the circumstances of the case the sentence awarded to the convicts is inadequate.

6. Ghulam Mustafa complainant, Ghulam Hsssan injured, Abdullah and Muhammad Yayat P.Ws. supported the prosecution version. Ghulam Mustafa complainant, Abdullah and Muhammad Hayat P.Ws. stated that three persons, namely, Fazal Ahmad, Mukhtar Ahmad and Niaz Ahmad, caused injuries to Ghulam Hassan, but Ghulam Hassan did not name Niaz Ahmad in any context. This is a very material discrepancy in the statements of the injured P.W. and the other eye‑witnesses.

7. According to the F. I. R., a land dispute in respect of which a civil suit was pending was the motive for the offence. At the trial, Ghulam Hassan injured stated that the accused had assaulted him due to aforesaid civil suit. He admitted that his brother Ghulam Mustafa was the plaintiff in the said suit. It has bee rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if Ghulam Mustafa who was the plaintiff in the suit, had been present at the spot, he would not have been spared. Another circumstance which raises a doubt about his presence at the spot is that Ghulam Hassan injured did not state that Ghulam Mustafa P.W. had also seen the occurrence. The occurrence took place in the area of Chah Sajarwala in village Muhammad Sharif. Abdullah P.W. is a resident of Chak No.158 situate at a distance of four to five miles from the place of occurrence. Ghulam Hassan P.W. stated that Abdullah P.W. used to reside at their Dhari and was cultivating the land of Qureshis as a tenant. Abdullah P.W. gave an altogether different explanation for his presence at the spot. He stated that he had purchased fodder and on the day of occurrence had come there for grazing the cattle. In cross‑examination he asserted having stated before the police that he was a resident of Chak No.158 and had come to Chah Sajarwala for grazing the cattle. He was confronted with his statement before the police where it was not so recorded. He denied having stated before the police that he was a resident of vililage Muhammad Sharif. He was confronted with his police statement where it was so recorded. It appears that he was imported as an eye‑witness from a distant place. In the circumstances, the evidence of Ghulam Mustafa and Abdullah P.Ws. is excluded from consideration. Muhammad Hayat P.W. is mother's sister's son of the complainant and Ghulam Hassan injured. In cross‑examination he firstly stated that he had no dispute with the accused party and had not filed any suit against them. He denied having stated before the police that the accused had occupied the land in which he had a share. He was confronted with his statement before the police wherein it was so recorded. He also denied having stated before the police that he had filed a suit against the accused which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Chiniot he was confronted with his police statement where it was so recorded. He is an interested witness having litigation with the accused but at the trial he tried to conceal this fact and his evidence, too, is not worth reliance.

8. Ghulam Hassan injured had only three injuries on his person, out of which No.3 on the back of right ear was caused by a sharp‑edged weapon. This injury was thin and the doctor had stated that it could be caused by a blade and could be self‑suffered. The eye‑witnesses stated that it was the result of a hatchet blow but their statements do not ring true, Had a hatchet blow been given it would have caused extensive damage, and not only a superficial cut. Injury No.1 was declared grievous on the basis of the X‑Ray report. Dr. Altaf Hussain who conducted the X‑Ray examination, admitted that he was not a qualified Radiologist. He further stated that the fracture line was dim. It is a case in which the injured suffered three injuries and four persons have been implicated, eye‑witnesses are interested and no corroboration is coming forth. In the circumstances the conviction and sentence of the petitioners cannot be allowed to stand.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition filed by the convicts is allowed, their conviction and sentence is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge. They are on bail. They shall be discharged from their bail bonds. Criminal Revision No.630 of 1983 automatically fails and is dismissed. M. Y. H. Petition accepted.