P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

On the 20th of October 1962, the doctor examined Noor Muhammad and found the following injuries on his person:‑ (1) A lacerated wound, 4" x " x 1 ", on the middle of the anterior aspect of the left hand, cutting the under‑lying muscles, vessels, and bones, transverse. (2) A lacerated wound, 1" x " x ", on the left thinner eminence vertical. (3) A lacerated wound, " x " through and through on the frontal aspect of the lower 1/3rd of the right thigh circular. (4) A lacerated wound, " x ", through and through on the middle of the‑right thigh circular. (5) A lacerated wound, 1/3" x 1/3", through and through on the posterior aspect of the upper 3rd of the left leg circular. (6) A lacerated wound, " x ", through and through on the lateral aspect of the upper 1/3rd of the left circular. (7) A lacerated wound, " x ", on the back of the left (8) A lacerated wound, " x ", through and on the middle of the left gluteal region. (9) A lacerated wound, " x ", through and through on the upper and frontal aspect of the left thigh circular. With the exception of injury No. 2, all other injuries were caused by fire‑arm. Injury No. 2 was caused by some On the same day the doctor examined Waryam appellant and found the following injuries on his person:‑ (1) A lacerated wound, 1/3"x 1/3", through and through on the posterior aspect of the middle of the right leg circular. (2) A lacerated wound, " x ", on the lateral aspect of the middle of the right leg circular. Both the injuries were simple and had been caused by fire‑arm. The margins of the wounds were burnt and blackened.

4. On the 21st of October 1962 Dr. Muhammad Bakhsh, Incharge, Civil Hospital, Nawabshah took X‑ray of left thigh and left hand of Noor Muhammad and found 5th metacarple bone of left hand fractured. A bullet was also found embedded over the region of the middle of left thigh:

5. The appellants denied their guilt and declined to produce. any defence. Ali Muhammad denied that he had received gunshot injuries. According to him when he had gone to see his relation, some unknown persons caught hold of him in the way and gave him beating, He also added: "I cultivated the land of Issan Kirio. I was in the cultivation. I found some dacoits entering the cultivation. There was firing going on and I was hit and fell down and later became unconscious. No rifle or any other article from my possession was secured." Rasul Bakhsh stated as under:‑-- "I have enmity with Haji Imam Ali Shah, retired, S, H. O., who is a friend of Muhmood S. H. O. We are in possession of evacuee property and I was hit and property I have dispute with Haji Imam Ali Shah." Waryam appellant also denied having received injuries at the hands of the police. According to him he and his cousin Khamiso had gone out shooting and accidentally, received injuries.

6. The prosecution case against the appellants rests on the testimony of Muhammad Umar, Haji Ghulam Muhammad, Haji Noor Muhammad and Waryam P. Ws. On going through their evidence I find some peculiar features, which deserve adverse A comments. According to the eye‑witnesses the occurrence took place at about 4 p. m. but according to Muhammad Ahmad, S. L, Ali Bakhsh P.W. after traveling 20‑miles distance, reached Police out‑post Khadar at about 3‑45 p. m. and informed him that the dacoits had raided the house of Haji Ghulam Muhammad P. W. It was not possible for Ali Bakhsh P. W. to have reached the Police Out‑post at, 3‑45 p.m. when the occurrence actually took place at 4 p. m. Secondly, I find that nobody recorded the statement of Ali Bakhsh P. W. when he came to the Police out‑post Khadar. This is really very strange. If the Sub Inspector and his party were in a hurry to go to the place of occurrence, he could not have taken everybody from the police post. At least a Moharrir Head Constable or somebody of that rank would have been left behind. Thirdly, I find that according to Hajj Noor Muhammad P. W. as soon as the dacoits had collected the booty, the police arrived on trucks and he heard reports of gun‑fire and then' the dacoits took to their heels. This again appears to be very improbable because in the first place the dacoits after committing the dacoity would not have lingered on in that vicinity and secondly how could the police have arrived soon after the dacoity because the police outpost is about 20 miles away from there and it would have taken them sometime to reach the village of Haji Ghulam Muhammad P. W. Fourthly, I find that according to the P. Ws. the police party did not actually reach the house of Haji Ghulam Muhammad P. W. but had an encounter with the dacoits when they were not very far away from the place of occurrence. Sub‑Inspector Muhammad Ahmad P. W. on the other hand stated that after learning about the occurrence from Ali Bakhsh P. W. he first went to the house of Haji Ghulam Muhammad P. W. and learned that the dacoits after committing the dacoity had left that place and it was only when he along with his party had travelled a distance of about mile or so, he had an encounter with the dacoits. Fifthly, I find that according to the prosecution the statement of Haji Ghulam Muhammad P. W. was recorded at the spot at about. 6 p.m. This is not correct because' Haji Ghulam Muhammad P. W. stated that his statement was recorded after Rasul Bakhsh appellant had been arrested and produced before the Sub Inspector. According to the Sub‑Inspector Rasul Bakhsh appellant was produced before him by A. S.

1. Mehdi Khan P. W. at about 11 p. m. It miay be mentioned here that Ali Muhammad appellant was arrested long before the arrest of Rasul Bakhsh appellant. This shows that none of the eye‑witnesses had identified him as one of the dacoits and that is why it appears that no statement was recorded by the Sub‑Inspector at that time. Sixthly, I find that the prosecution has tried to fabricate evidence in this case. For instance the prosecution has examined Tasawwar Hussain, Head Constable (P. W. 5) and Sher Muhammad (P. W. 11) as the persons who had witnessed the arrest of Rasul Bakhsh appellant. The A.S. I. Mehdi Khan, who actually arrested‑Rasul Baklrsh appellant, has not mentioned them as having been present at the time of the arrest. He has given a list of all the persons accompanying him, but the names of these two witnesses are not mentioned herein. I also find that the identification of Waryam appellant by Haji Ghulam Muhammad P. W. at the parade appears to be a farce, because according to Muhammad Umar P. W. Hap Ghulam Muhammad P. W. was present at the time when Waryam appellant was arrested by the police. This would show that he had been him before the identification parade. Lastly, I find that no impor tance can be attached to the identification of Waryam appellant by the other P. Ws. at the parade, because the Sub‑Inspector, who had investigated this case, was present at the Sub‑jail throughout the period when the parade was held and therefore, the, possibility that the appellants were shown to the witnesses before the identification parade cannot be excluded. Taking all the aforementioned peculiar features into consideration I find that it will not be safe to base conviction on the testimony of the aforementioned eye‑witnesses. I, accordingly, accept both the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants and acquit them. They should be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. A.H. Appeals accepted.