1987 PLP 1804 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Saleh Muhammad complainant‑petitioner against respondents 1 to 7 namely, Ghulam Sarwar, Muhammad Aslam, Ghulam, Bashir son of Faqir Muhammad, Bashir son of Nazar Muhammad, Waris and Ghulam Hussain who were tried for offences under section 302/149/148/323, P.P.C. vide judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Multan dated 18th October, 1977 all of them were convicted under section 302/149, P.P.C., and Ghulam Hussain respondent was sentenced to death plus fine whereas all the rest were sentenced to imprisonment for life each plus fine. Respondents 1 to 7 were also convicted under section 148, P.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. each. Similarly they convicted under section 323/149, P.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to 3 months' R.I. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal before the Lahore High Court Multan Bench vide judgment dated 15th February, 1981 all of them were acquitted. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal against the order of their acquittal. The deceased in this case is Ghulam Rasul real brother of Saleh Muhammad complainant‑petitioner who was also injured in the course of the occurrence which took place on 17th February, 1977 at noon time in the village field. F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 4‑30 p.m. The respondents were arrested on 19th February, 1977. Recoveries in this case are of no consequence as these were not found to be stained with blood. The case of the prosecution is based mainly on the ocular testimony of the three eye‑witnesses namely Saleh Muhammad P.W. complainant‑petitioner, Muhammad Bakhsh P.W. and Muhammad Ramzan, P.W. The motive advanced in this case is that Ghulam Hussain respondent had illicit relations with Mst. Begum daughter of Nazar Muhammad maternal‑uncle of the deceased and Saleh Muhammad complainant‑petitioner. A month before the present occurrence he was beaten up due to this reason by them i.e. including the deceased, and it was in retaliation of the same that the deceased and Saleh Muhammad complainant‑petitioner had been attacked. According to the prosecution story all the members of the accused party raised a Lalkara and attacked the deceased with their respective weapons, when Saleh Muhammad petitioner‑complainant alongwith the deceased was returning to the village from the fields at noon time. They were surrounded and all the respondents started belabouring them. Their victim was the deceased and when Saleh Muhammad complainant‑petitioner tried to rescue him he was given a blow on his left thumb. The occurrence was witnessed besides Saleh Muhammad complainant‑petitioner by Muhammad Bakhsh and Muhammad Ramzan P.Ws. It was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant petitioner that the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench gave the benefit of doubt to all the respondents and acquitted all of them for the reason that no reliance was placed on the uncorroborated account of the eye‑witnesses who were stated to be closely related to the deceased and each of them was inimical to one or the other of the respondents. Learned counsel argued that there was no justification on the part of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench to arrive at such a conclusion because Muhammad Ramzan P.W. was unconnected and independent eye‑witness. It was further argued that according to the medical evidence the deceased had received 21 injuries all caused with blunt weapon and thus he was severely beaten which indicated that it was a job which was performed by a large number of assailants. It was submitted that Saleh Muhammad complainant‑petitioner had a contusion mark and swelling on the left thumb which indicated that he was given this injury when he tried to rescue the deceased. Thus, according to the learned counsel the medical evidence was supporting the testimony of Muhammad Ramzan P.W. Learned counsel for Saleh Muhammad complainant‑petitioner read the statement of Muhammad Ramzan P.W. before us but it did not support his argument as a perusal of his statement indicated clearly that he was also inimical and hostile and not a disinterested witness. In the light of the above discussion, in our considered view, the impugned judgment in this case does not merit any interference as it has assessed the evidence very carefully and minutely. The result is that there is no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. S.Q/S‑59/S Leave refused.