1989 PLP 1522 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Saghir Ahmad complainant‑petitioner and is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 21 September, 1986 whereby the conviction and sentence of Riaz Ahmad respondent were set aside and he was acquitted. Briefly the facts are that Riaz Ahmad alongwith Muhammad Ashraf was tried under section 302/109/34, P.P.C. but the trial Court acquitted Muhammad Ashraf whereas Riaz Ahmad respondent was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine. On appeal Riaz Ahmad respondent was acquitted by the High Court as stated above. The deceased in the instant case is Muhammad Ashraf and Saghir Ahmad complainant‑petitioner his brother who lodged the F.I.R. was also injured. The occurrence took place on 20 July 1983 in District Sheikhupura and the F.I.R. was lodged on the same day. The recoveries in this case have been disbelieved. The eye‑witnesses namely Saghir Ahmad complainant‑petitioner, Abdus Sattar and Abdul Wahid had been considered as interested by the High Court, and therefore no reliance was placed on their testimony. The motive as set up by the prosecution has also not been relied upon by the High Court. It was to the effect that one year prior to the present occurrence one brother of the petitioner and deceased namely Muhammad Anwar was injured by Riaz Ahmad respondent and a case was got registered as against him under section 307/326/324, P.P.C. In that case Riaz Ahmad respondent was on bail whereas the present deceased was an eye‑witness. The prosecution story is that on the fateful day both the parties had gone to attend the Court. When the case was adjourned they returned by bus. While stepping out of the bus there was an altercation between the parties and exchange of abuses. Muhammad Ashraf acquitted co accused picked up a stick and caused injuries to Saghir Ahmad complainant petitioner. Then subsequently the respondent appeared on a cycle. He took out a knife and caused injures to the deceased. Leaving the knife m the body of the deceased he ran away. According to the medical evidence the deceased had penetrating wound on the chest and an incised wound on the chin and lower lip. He died as a result of the first injury. Saghir Ahmad complainant‑petitioner had two contusion marks. The injuries were simple and caused with blunt weapon. The sister of Riaz Ahmad'respondent namely Mst. Sharifan had also been medically examined. She had five injuries on her person in the form of contused wounds, abrasions and swellings on the right buttock, right wrist, right foot and left specular region. All injuries were caused with the blunt weapon and within the duration of few hours. According to the version of Riaz Ahmad respondent the deceased inflicted injuries on the person of his sister and afterwards also tried to attack him. He therefore in the exercise of his right of private defence and to save his sister caused injuries to the deceased by picking up a Chhuri from the spot. According to him the deceased had trespassed into the house of the accused party by breaking up the door. The broken door had been found by the police in the course of the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner before us attempted to argue that the ocular testimony should have been relied upon in this case and the prosecution version was the correct version. According to the learned counsel the High Court should have not believed the defence version. We have perused the impugned judgment. The High Court has correctly arrived at the conclusion that the ocular testimony was interested and was uncorroborated. On the other hand Riaz Ahmad respondent had taken up the plea of right of self defence and in order to save his sister who was alleged to have been beaten in her house by the deceased. After going through the impugned judgment we are of the considered opinion that the conclusions arrived at by the Lahore High Court, Lahore are correct and proper, and no interference is called for. As a result this petition is dismissed. M.A.K./S‑293/5 Petition dismissed.