1986 PLP 1771 (MLD)

Prosecution examined Muhammad Bashir, Liaqat Ali and Muhammad Ali as eye‑witnesses to the occurrence. Reliance was placed on the recovery of Chhuri, which according to the report of Serologist was found to be stained with human blood. The last piece of evidence is the post‑mortem report of Abdur Rashid. Muhammad Bashir the first informant deposed before the trial Court that he knew both the accused. Rafique was the maternal uncle of Inayat. Muhammad Bashir was Chaukidar in Military Dairy Farm, Okara. He took ten days leave and went to his village Chak No.44‑2/L. He was sitting in the house of Abdur Rashid. Muhammad Ali and Abdul Khaliq were also there. So was Rashid. Sun was about to set when Liaqat tenant of Rashid came there. Liaqat informed Rashid that he started irrigating the‑ land of Rashid at 3‑30 p.m. when Inayat accused diverted the water to his own land. Liaqat stopped Inayat from doing so. He was given beating by Inayat with an iron chain. Rashid and Liaqat left in order to complain to Inayat and Rafique. Immediately after they had left, Muhammad Bashir and others heard some noise. Bashir accompanied by Muhammad Ali and Abdul Khaliq rushed towards that direction. He heard and saw Rafique raising Lalkara and grabbing Rashid. Inayat inflicted three dagger blows on the person of Rashid. The party tried to apprehend them but they were threatened. In the meanwhile, Rashid fell down. The accused ran away alongwith the dagger. Rashid expired on way to the hospital. His dead body was brought back to the village. Liaqat the next eye‑witness said that he was irrigating land of Rashid. It was their turn when the appellant came there and diverted water to his own land. Liaqat stopped him. He was beaten with an iron chain: Liaqat came to Rashid in Chak No.44‑2/L and informed him about the incident. It was at about sun set time when this was conveyed to Rashid. Rashid and Liaqat then left for the house of Inayat. They wanted to complain about the behaviour of Inayat. Both the maternal uncle and the nephew‑ met them at the door of one Amanat. Rashid, enquired from Inayat as to why he had diverted water and beaten Liaqat. Inayat threatened to deal with Bashir as well. Rafique raised Lalkara. He caught hold of Rashid. Inayat who had dagger stabbed Rashid. He was hit in the left flank. Rashid also received blow on his face. Third blow was given on the back of left ear. Rashid became unconscious. Occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Ali .Bashir and Abdul Khaliq. The party tried to catch hold of the assailants but both managed to escape. Muhammad Ali the last eye‑witness was residing in' Chak No.44/2‑L. Later on, he shifted to Chak No.6/4‑L, Saddar Okara. On the day of occurrence, Muhammad Ali, Bashir and Abdul Khaliq were present in the house of Rashid. Rashid was also there. Liaqat came and informed that Inayat had again diverted the water. Earlier Liaqat was irrigating his land and that was according to his turn. Muhammad Ali further told that when Liaqat took exception to the conduct of Inayat he was beaten with iron chain. The rest of the story is the same as given by the two eye‑witnesses. The appellant was arrested on i6‑2‑1983. The dagger was taken into possession on 17‑2‑1983. Dr. Javed Rashid, Medical Officer., Civil Hospital, Okara conducted the post‑mortem. He noticed three incised wounds and an abrasion. Incised wound 2 C.m. x c.m. x chest deep on the left side of the chest proved fatal. Inayat admitted that the acquitted accused was his m‑1ernal uncle. He denied the rest of the allegations and said that he was arrested on 17‑2 1983. Chhuri was planted on him by the police. P.Ws falsely deposed against him on account of enmity. When questioned "have you anything else to say" he gave the following answer:‑ "I am innocent: We have Tazeeri Wars Bandi in our village During the days of the occurrence, the turn of water in Sq No.83 fell on Tuesdays. The turn of Water in Sq. No.79 would fall on Thursdays from 12‑20 noon to 6‑30 p.m. On 10‑2‑1983 the day of the occurrence we took the turn of water in Sq No.79 acid after sometime, the supply of water diminished in the water course and I went to have a round of the watercourse. After reaching Sq. No.83 I saw Rashid deceased had illegally cut and diverted our water to his land in Sq.No.83. I tried to re‑divert water but Rashid did not allow me and threatened that in case I dared to divert the water, he would murder me. As soon as I attempted to re‑divert water, Rashid caught hold of Kassi and attacked me. Apprehending imminent danger to my life I injured him with a knife by acting in the exercise of the right of self‑defence of person and property. Neither my co‑accused nor the P.Ws were present on the spot at that time. After the occurrence Muhammad Bashir was summoned from Military Dairy Farm, Okara who conspired with the police and got a false case registered by changing venue and time of occurrence by concocting a false motive. The complainant party had no turn of water at the alleged time of occurrence." It is evident from the statement of the appellant that there are two versions of the incident; one as given by the prosecution and the other by the appellant. If the prosecution evidence is to be accepted then this appeal merit's dismissal. The question for determination is which version is to be accepted. Undoubtedly prosecution produced three witnesses of the occurrence. But the important evidence was withheld and that was as to whose turn it was to irrigate. The best evidence could be that of an official of the Department concerned. Liaqat is tenant of Rashid. The other two witnesses had no suthentic knowledge as to whose turn it was. In the absence of any evidence to that effect I find no justification why the statement of appellant is not to be accepted. As a matter of fact the appellant's version appeals to reason and is more plausible. I, therefore, accept his‑ statement with the result that this appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. He is acquitted. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. H.A.K. Appeal accepted.