1988 PLP 388 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH. J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the complainant-side in a murder case, from judgment of the Lahore High Court; whereby appeal of respondent No.1 against his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine, was allowed and he was acquitted. Originally in addition to the said respondent, three more persons were charged by the petitioner-side; two were not challaned by the police, and the third one who is respondent No.2 herein having been challaned was acquitted by the trial Court. The petitioner-side had moved a revision against the acquittal of respondent No.2 but that also was dismissed by the High Court. The accused/ respondents when armed with gun and rifles allegedly were responsible for the death of Mohammad Hayat deceased. The motive alleged was that Ghulam Qadir and Mohammad Ramzan P.Ws. had hurled an indecent joke on Mst.Zarina, a close relation of Dost Muhammad respondent. Therefore, in order to avenge this insult, the four accused attacked the complainant-side in which the deceased suffered six injuries while Dost Muhammad and Asghar respondents suffered 11 and 5 injuries, respectively. Dost Muhammad accused had, on the other hand, as a counter-blast in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. stated that the accused-side had insulted a woman of the complainant party, therefore, the latter attacked him, caused injuries to him, snatched his gun and when Asghar came to rescue him caused injuries to him also. The learned trial Judge held that the motive asserted from the prosecution-side was established, the F.I.R. was lodged after due deliberation and consultation, the complainant party had falsely implicated Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad who were not challaned by the police and that the prosecution did not give correct version of the occurrence. However, on account of the admission by Dost Muhammad respondent and also by keeping both the versions in juxtaposition to each other, Dost Muhammad was found guilty while Asghar was acquitted. A learned Single Judge in the High Court accepted the appeal of Dost Muhammad mainly on the ground that right of self-defence could reasonably be extended to him. Learned counsel for the complainant-side has contended that the very fact that the gun of Dost Muhammad was snatched from him by the P. Ws. and was produced before the police should have been considered as strong material to show that the injuries found on the accused were on account of exercise of right of private defence by the complainant party. He also contended that the plea of self-defence was not raised as such by Dost Muhammad in his statement under Section 342 Cr. P. C . Therefore, he could not be given any benefit in this behalf. He has further generally commented upon the appreciation of dence by the learned Courts below. It is true that Dost Muhammad had not stated in so many words that he fired his gun in his self-defence and asserted only this much that when he was being attacked and the gun was being snatched from him, it went off. However, if from the circumstance of the case right of self-defence can reasonably be spelled out for Dost Muhammad it could not be denied to him. We heard the learned counsel at some length with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the one-sided version given by each party and are of the view that entire truth was not disclosed by either of them. There is no misreading of evidence by the High Court nor any material evidence has been ignored and in our view the impugned judgment has not resulted in miscarriage of justice. No justification has been made out for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.I./M-287/S Petition dismissed.