1989 PLP 292 (MLD)

The petitioners Abdus Sattar and his sons Inayat and Muhammad Amin were tried under section 324, read with section 34 of the P.P.C. and were by a Judgment of the Magistrate Section 30, Kasur, dated 1‑3‑1976 convicted and sentenced to R.I. for three years, fine of Rs. 1,000 each or in default S.I. for six months each. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Kasur, by his judgment elated 27‑10‑1977 maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to R.I. for one year each.

2. According to the F I R, which was recorded in the hospital on 3‑11‑1971, Abdus Sattar and Muhammad Amin were armed with dangs and Inayat was armed with a hatchet and they had caused injuries to Abdur Rehman. The latter was medically examined on 3‑11‑1971 and was found to have four injuries on his person, namely, an incised wound on the head 3" above left ear, a contused wound on the back of right forearm, a contusion on the back of right arm and an abrasion on the right leg.

3. At the trial, the ocular account of the occurrence was given by Abdur Rehman (P.W.I), Muhammad Ali (P.W.2) and Daood (PW.3). Muhammad Ali was a real uncle and Daood was a real brother of Abdur Rehman. Abdur Rehman stated that the petitioners wanted him to demolish the watercourse which passed by their well but they had refused to do so. On the day of occurrence at 12.30 noon, he was having a round of his lands, when the petitioners Abdus Sattar and Muhammad Amin armed with dangs and Inayat armed with a hatchet attacked. Inayat hit him on his head and then Abdus Sattar and Muhammad Amin hit him on his arms. Abdus Sattar also gave him a dang blow on his leg. He was rescued by Muhammad Ali and Daood P.Ws:' who put him on a cot and took him to his house. Muhammad Ali and Daood P.Ws. said that the incident had occurred at about midnight and not at' noon time. Muhammad Ali P.W. admitted that he did not own any land in the village; he was a labourer and was at the time of the occurrence on his way to Mauza Roda for labour. Daood P.W. said that he and Abdur Rehman had gone to have a round of their lands. Abdur Rehman did not give that explanation of the presence of Daood at the time of the occurrence. According to him, when he was attacked, Muhammad Ali and Daood reached the spot and rescued him from the petitioners. Thus according to Abdur Rehman, the incident had occurred at noon time and not at midnight time. The courts below appear to have taken the view that to avail of this discrepancy between the F I R and Abdur Rehman's statement in Court, the petitioners should have confronted Abdur Rehman with the F.I.R. There was, however, no ambiguity about Abdur Rehman's statement as to the time of occurrence and I am unable to see why the petitioners could not take advantage of the discrepancy. Then admittedly Abdur Rehman did not go to the hospital till 3‑11‑1971; it was on the intimation received from the doctor that the police reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Abdur Rehman, which statement was the basis of the formal F.I.R. The failure of the complainant party to report the incident to the police till as late as 3‑11‑1971 gives rise to a number of inferences such as that Abdur Rehman had not recognized the culprits and that Muhammad Ali and Daood P.Ws. had not seen the incident taking place. Had they done so and Abdur Rehman was not fit to travel to the police station, one of them could go and report the incident. The truth of the matter, according to Daood P.W., was that even Abdur Rehman had not lost ' consciousness immediately after the incident and it was when he did so that they thought of taking him to the hospital. I am, therefore, of the view that the prosecution case was not free from reasonable doubt. 1, therefore, accept the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the petitioners. They shall stand discharged of their bail bonds. M.Y.H./A‑493/L Petition allowed.