1982 P Cr (PLP)

The report (Exh. P. K.) was lodged by Rehmat Ali. It was recorded by Siddique Ahmad A. S. I. Initially, the case was registered under section 307/324, P. P. C. but as the injured died, the charge was altered to murder.

3. The prosecution examined Rehmat Ali (P. W. 6), Muhammad Ashraf (P. W. 7) and Muhammad Asbiq (P. W. 8) as eye‑witnesses. Reliance was also placed on the recovery of knife P. 2, medico‑legal and post‑martem report of the deceased.

4. The appellant admitted the occurrence ; denied the murder charge. He Pave his own version as to how the incident took place and what compelled him to kill Lai Khan. His statement shall have to be examined in juxtaposition with the prosecution case.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court disbelieved the entire prosecution evidence ; hence the appellant was entitled to acquittal. 1t was further submitted that the conviction has been based on the statement of the appellant which, according to him, was not correct. He submitted that the statement of the appellant had to be believed in toto and the result would be the same that is to say acquittal for the appellant.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State who supported the impugned judgment but without any effective argument. Lal Khan was examined twice ; once antemortem and then post?mortem. According to his medicolegal report, he had the following injuries :‑ (1) An incised wound 2 cm x ? cm x 2 cm, 10 cm below the upper end of sternum just to the right side of mid line. It was situated obliquely, going from below upwards and to the right side. (2) An incised wound 2 c. m. x 1 cm x 1 cm. It was 16 cm below and to the left side of umblicus almost at the junction of belly and left thigh. (3) An incised wound 3 cm x ? cm x 1? cm on the left side of loin, 9 cm above the hipbone of left side. The same injuries was found by the doctor who performed post?mortem examination. The appellant was injured. Dr. Rana Muhammad Shafique (P. W. 3) noticed ?`a lacerated wound 3 cm x ? cm x skin deep over right side of back of head, 9 cm from the root of right ear." When asked to explain the injury, the appellant gave the following version :‑ "I started from my house to go to Gujranwala. When I reached the Kacha path, I saw father of Rehmat P. W. and Lal Din deceased cultivating my land with the oxen of Hanif Weaver and Ghulam Haider Mangat. While coming on the kacha path, I asked Lai Khan that he should not cultivate this piece of land which enraged him and he proceeded towards me hurling dirty abuses to me. He caught hold of me from my beard and started beating me while I was on the kacha path. I also gave him fist blows. He brought out a knife which I managed to snatch from his hands. He then tried to strangulate me by his hands and in this process he suffered those injuries. I fell down near kacha path on the grassy plot and fell unconscious. During fight, wife of Lai Khan came and gave me danda blows on my head. The law no doubt entitled the appellant to use force to save his life but the amount of force to be used must be reasonable. According to the appellant, he disarmed the deceased. Thereafter it was not open to him to use indiscriminate force. He was, therefore, expected to use that much force which was sufficient to deter his assailant from causing any fatal injury. The appellant, thus, was justified upto the extent of inflicting one injury and by going beyond that he exceeded the right of private defence. In the circumstances, I don't think that he is entitled to acquittal. Nevertheless, he deserves some concession in the quantum of sentence. His conviction under section 302, P. P. C. is altered to section 304 Part II, P, P. C. and the sentence is reduced to five years R. I. However, the sentence of fine is maintained which shall be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. The Collector concerned be directed to take immediate steps for realization of fine and payment. With the above observations the appeal is disposed of. Order accordingly.