1976 P Cr (PLP)

Sardar Najam‑ud‑Din for A. G. (Punjab) for the State. Date of hearing: 1st October 1974. The eight petitioners were convicted by

4. D. C. (G) Bahawalnager on 8‑2‑1973, under sections 148 and 452/149, P. P. C. They were awarded sentences of six months under section 148, P. P. C. while under section 452/14949, P, P. C. they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500 or in default in payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Four out of eight petitioners, namely, Ali Subhan Shera and Yousuf were further convicted under section 307/149, P. P. C. and each of them sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 500 each or in default in payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The remaining four petitioners namely Usman, Mammi, Hanif and Sakhi were further convicted under section 323/149, P. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners filed an appeal against their convictions and sentences but did not succeed and their appeal was dismissed. The sentence of Ali, Subhan, Shera and Yousuf was, however, reduced from four to three years. Having felt aggrieved of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, dated 7‑3‑1973, the petitioners preferred the present revision petition.

2. On 15‑1‑1971 at morning time Kali (P. W. 5) and his brother Haswar had exchanged hot words with Shera petitioner etc. whereupon Shera, Mammi, Hanif, Ali and Sakhi, petitioners brought out sticks from their houses and chased Kali P. W. and his brother Haswar. Sajawara P. W. reached the spot and stopped the petitioners from the assault Ali, petitioner inflicted him stick blow on the head. Ghulam, complainant (P. W. 1) had seen this occurrence while standing near his house. The petitioners caused injuries to Kali, Sajawara P. Ws. And their brother Haswar Ghulam P. W. raised noise. His sister Mst. Nuoran (P. W. 1) and wife Mst. Sultan Bibi (P. W. 4) and Sakhi Muhammad reached the spot. Usman, Yousuf and Subhan, petitioners, also reached the spot armed with sticks, Yousuf, Usman, Subhan and Ali, petitioners, caused injuries is Ghulam (P. W.) Many persons collected at the spot, Subhan, petitioner, gave out lalkara that Kali and Sajwara (P. Ws.) be done to death Subhan, petitioner, inflicted sticks blows to Mst. Nooran on the head. The case was registered on the statement of Ghulam P. W. 1). The injured witnesses were medically examined. Yousuf, Subhan, Ali and Shara, petitioners produced sticks, which were taken into possession. Shara, Subhan, Ali and Sakhi, petitioners, were medically examined for their injuries. The petitioners were challaned after investigation.

3. The prosecution examined Ghulam, Sajawara, Mst. Nooran Mst. Sultan Bibi and Kali as eye‑witnesses of this case. They named the eight petitioners as having committed rioting armed with deadly weapons and having caused them injuries with sticks. Except Mst. Sultan Bibi, the other witnesses had sustained injuries. Ghulam (P. W) had six injuries out of which cane was grievous. Sajawara (P, W) was caused four injuries and out of those, one was grievous. One out of two injuries of Mat. Nooran was fou,d grievous. Kali had five simple injuries. Dr Bilqees Feroz (P. W. 8) had examined Mst. Nooran and Dr. Masood Ahmad (P. W. 9) who had examined the remaining witnesses, were produced in Court in order to prove the injuries on the person of the prosecution witnesses.

4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Sessions Judge did not properly weigh the evidence and it was a case of misreading and mis-a appreciation of evidence. According to him the plea of self‑defence taken up by the injured petitioners, was not duly considered.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners took me through the prosecution evidence. The occurrence had taken place in village Crose. Ghulam complainant had mentioned in the F. I. R. that many persons had reached the spot. No person from the entire village came forward to support the prosecution case except the members of the family of Ghulam (P. W:). All the injured witnesses are closely related to each other. Sajawara and Kali (P. Ws.) are sons of Ghulam, complainant. Mst. Nooran is sister and Mist. Sultan Bibi is the wife of the complainant As mentioned earlier, the occurrence had taken place in the morning time and was seen by other residents of the village. All the eye‑witnesses did not explain the q injuries of Shara, Subhan, Ali and Sakhi, petitioners, Shera, Subhan and Ali,' petitioners, had seven injuries each on their persons while Sakhi, petitioner had eight injuries. The total number of the injuries on the persons of the; four prosecution witnesses comes to 17 while the petitioners had a total number of 29 injuries. In case the petitioners had been the assailants they could never have sustained such a large number of injuries and injuries on the complainant side would have been mush more in number. The occurrence started as the kharas of Ata Muhammad. He was also not produced by the prosecution. There was exchange of abuses at the said kharas and in view of this fact I am constrained to hold that many persons were present the said kharas. During cores‑examination, Ghulam (P. W. 1) stated that all of them were empty handed and the accused might have received injuries from their hands. Sajawara r. W. 2 stated that he did not know if any of the accused was injured Mst. Nooran (P. W. 3) and Mst. Sultan Bibi (P, W. 4) did not mention at all if the petitioners were caused injuries. Kali (P. W. 5) denied the suggestion that Subhan, Ali and Shera had received injuries at the time of occurrence. The denial on the part of the eye witnesses that four petitioners were caused injuries during the occurrence, clearly proves that the eye‑witnesses did not approach the Court with clean hands and concealed the injuries of the four petitioner intentionally. Their statements clearly stood discredited. No implicit reliance could be placed on the statements of such witnesses. Plea of self defence had been taken up by the petitioners in their statements. The statements of the interested eye witnesses are not corroborated by any other disinterested evidence. The petitioners had received more in as compared with the eye witnesses. Injuries of the four petitioners had snot beer, explained away by the eye‑witnesses, rather they had concealed their own part. Taking all these facts into consideration, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the petitioners beyond doubt. The petitioners are entitled to the benefit of doubt. For tire seasons stated above, this revision petition is accepted and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and that of the trial Magistrate are set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of all the charges. Ali, Subhan, Shera and Yousuf, petitioners, who are in jail, shall be set free forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Usman, Mammi, Hanif and Sakhi, petitioners, are on bail. They are discharged of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.