1968 P Cr (PLP)

2. The State did not prefer to challenge this order in appeal and the present Criminal Revision was filed after the lapse of twenty‑two month.

3. The relevant facts giving rise to the case may be summarized as follows:

4. After the Partition, two groups of refugees one from East Punjab and the other from Jammu and Kashmir, were settled in village Khair Bawa the scene of occurrence in Phalia Police Station of Gujrat District. The refugees from Jammu and Kashmir were allotted some lands which were earlier held by the refugees from East Punjab who continued the hold over and were not pre pared to part with the possession. On 16th July 1960, an applica tion Exh. P‑B was submitted by one Master Muhammad Shareef on behalf of Jammu and Kashmir refugees to Tehsildar Phalia with a two‑fold prayer that the lands allotted to them may be got demarcated and that the tenants may be directed to give share of the produce to them. This application was marked to the Girdawar for demarcation who in turn forwarded it for compliance to Muhammad Anwar Patwari (P. W. 9). Accordingly, on 22nd July 1960 at digerwela, the Patwari proceeded to the spot and having made the necessary demarcation started preparing his report Exh. P‑B/1. While sitting under jaman tree shown at point No. 4 in the site plan Exh. P‑H, he was busy in drawing up the report in the presence of Makhan complainant (P. W. 7), Lal Din (P. W. 8), Muhammad Khan (P. W. 10), Yaqin Ali deceased and one Ali Muhammad Lambardar of village Jaisak, suddenly the five respondents appeared at the scene, of whom Anwar, Hameed and Aslam were armed with lathis while Abdur Rashid and Hafeez wielded hatchets. They challenged that they would see how the lands in their possession were demarcated and then suddenly opened the attack. Yaqin Ali deceased was hit by Anwar and Hameed respondents with their respective sticks who gave him one blow each on the head and he fell to the ground. Rashid and Hafeez respondents gave one blow each with their respective hatchets to Lal Din P. W. while Aslam gave him two blows with his stick. He also fell down. Aslam also gave a blow to Makhan complainant on the right shoulder. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Anwar Patwari, Muhammad Khan, Lal Din, and Ali Muhammad Lambardar. Yaqin Ali deceased was removed to Phalia hospital in a state of unconsciousness where he succumbed to the injuries early next morning at about 4 a.m. and at 4‑30 a.m. report Exh. P‑A was lodged by Makhan P. W. at Phalia Police Station. Dr. M. Yamin Medical Officer, Phalia, who examined Yaqin Ali deceased earlier on 22nd July 1960 at 11 p.m. and on the following day performed autopsy on his dead body found two injuries on his head, a contused wound 1 " x " x " on the left side of head, 5" above the left ear with a swelling around, and a swelling 5" x 4" on the right side of head, 1 " above the ear. On dissection of the scalp, he found linear fracture of the right parietal bone, a linear fracture of the frontal bone, and a linear fracture of the right temporal bone, as a result of injury No. 2 which proved fatal and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On the same day he examined Lal Din P. W. and found two incised wounds 1 " x " x 1/8 and 1 " x " x " on his left forearm and right arm respectively, and two contusions 1 " x " x " and 2 " x " on the left side of the head and back of left hand. Makhan complainant was also examined by him on the same day and found an abrasion, 1" x 2" on the bridge of his nose. From amongst the accused, he examined Rashid respondent on the same day and found simple contused wound 1" x " x " on the left side of his head, vide his report Exh. P‑BB. Anwar accused was examined on 29th July 1960 and had about seven days old contused wound " x " x " on the left side of his head, vide Exh. P‑CC. On 2nd August 1960, he examined Abdul Hameed respondent and found a twelve days old partly healed contused wound on the right side of his head " x " x ", 4" above the ear caused with a blunt weapon. On 17th August 1960, he examined Hafeez respondent and found three to four weeks old four contusions, .two on the back of left side of chest and two on the back of left side of the abdomen. Besides the aforesaid examination, of the P. Ws. and the respondents, he also examined Qamar father of Anwar respondent on 27th July 1960 having two contusions on his left shoulder, Sardar Ali on 30th July 1960 having an abrasion on the back of chest, Allah Bakhsh and Sharaf Din each having a contusion respectively on the back of abdomen and back of chest. It may be pertinent to observe that none of these four persons found even a passing reference in the F. I. R. Exh. P‑A.

5. At the trial the prosecution case rested mainly on the testimony of Makhan complainant, Lal Din injured (P. W. 8), Muhammad Khan (P. W. 10) and Muhammad Anwar Patwari (P. W. 9).

6. All the respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded alibi except Rashid who explained his false implication in the following words:‑ "The fact is that I, along with Barkat Ali, Sharaf Din, Qamar Din, Sardar Ali and Allah Bakhsh were sitting under the Jaman tree, at about digerwela, when Muhammad Anwar Patwari accompanied by Hussain son‑in‑law of Makhan P. W. and about 24 other person, who were all Muhajirs of Jammu and Kashmir, came to that place. They told us that they had taken demarcation of the land and that they would forcibly eject us from our houses. I objected to their remarks, upon which they proceeded towards our houses saying that they would forcibly turn out our family members from our houses. I along with my companions who were sitting under the Jaman tree, tried to resist them from their act, on which those persons began to beat us. I also received injuries on my head. After the incident, I went to the doctor and after getting a medical certificate, I approached the police in order to get my case registered against the accused and his partisans, but the police refused to register any case on my behalf." Aslam and Hafeez also stated that Muhammad Anwar Patwari was inimical to them and as such had falsely deposed against them. No evidence was led in defence.

7. At the time of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor seeing the untenability of the prosecution case tried to argue that it was a case of free fight and each person should be held responsible for the part played by him. This however, did not find favour with the learned Judge who acquitted the respondents on the grounds of the interestedness of the P. Ws., the conflict of their testimony with the medical evidence, the possibility of the injury of Makhan being self‑suffered, the improvements in the statements of the P. Ws. and the non‑production of Ali Muhammad Lambardar. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the fight had been forced on the respondents when the complainant party wanted to take forcible possession of the disputed lands and had thus fought in self‑defence and that the defence version had been admittedly put up before the A. S. I. by Rashid respondent at the earliest opportunity.

8. This Revision Petition was admitted by Jamil Hussain Rizvi, J.‑to examine the solitary contention raised before his Lordships that the testimony of Muhammad Anwar Patwari (P. W. 9) who was an independent witness, had been wrongly discarded by the learned Judge.

9. Being conscious of the fact that he was rather on a weak wicket, the learned counsel made only a feeble and half‑hearted attempt to press his case. Although having gone through the record I could not avoid an impression that Dr. Muhammad Yamin (P. W. 1) had gone the whole bag to support the accused persons and that the learned trial Judge had credulously placed a much‑too‑ready and implicit reliance on the concessions made by him during cross‑examination, yet that would be hardly of any consequence in so far as the final outcome of the case is concerned. In the first instance, the Criminal Revision merits dismissal on the short ground of laches having been filed after about two years of the impugned order of acquittal. As stated earlier, the State did not choose to prefer an appeal and very rightly so and in a case like this I L R. 6 All. 84 may be cited as an authority in point. But even if the revision had been promptly lodged, it would hardly have made any difference in view of the basic improbabilities contained in the prosecution case. In the first instance, Makhan, Lal Din and Muhammad Khan P. Ws. being refugees from Jammu and Kashmir were pitted against the respondents and other refugees from East Punjab, and besides being interested witnesses had also made considerable improve ments in their statements. Secondly, in order to explain away a large number of injuries sustained by the respondents, and definitely larger than those suffered by the deceased and the P. Ws. a wholly absurd and belated attempt was made by stating that Lal Din P. W. after receipt of his injuries on the head and the arms, having regained consciousness snatched a stick from one of the accused and injured Rashid. The patent absurdity of this explanation is much too obvious to be discussed.

10. Coming now to the testimony of Muhammad Anwar Patwari, I have no hesitation in endorsing the view that he was by no means a disinterested witness who had repaired to the place of occurrence at the instance of the complainant party, and appeared to be out to help them in the case. It is in evidence that Sardar Ali on of the injured persons had made an application against him. In their statements under section 342, Cr. P. C., the respondents had brought definite allegations of partisanship against him, and besides he made improvement upon his police statement when he deposed at the trial that the respondents were armed with hatchets and dangs. But even so taking his testimony on its face value and placing the most liberal interpretation on it favourable to the prosecution, it is in no way helpful to the prosecution so as to furnishing an independent piece of corroborative evidence to form a valid basis of con viction. He deposed "The complainant party were empty‑handed. Yaqin Ali deceased was given sota blows in my view but I do not know at whose hands he was injured. I did not see anybody else falling down unconscious or otherwise, on the ground. I did not see any other member of the complainant party or that of the accused injured. I remained under the Jaman tree throughout the incident." Having towed the line of other P. Ws. he suddenly ended up, as it were, in a blind alley. He further stated "The delivery of possession of the demarcated land was not given to the Muhajirs of Jammu and Kashmir". He admitted in cross‑examination. "The possession had all along continued to remain with the refugees from East Punjab, even in regard to the lands demarcated on 22nd July 1960". From this, it becomes quite clear that the complainant party had misunderstood the true implication of demarcation which is quite different and distinguishable from the actual delivery of possession and as such, in all probability, they wanted to take forcible possession of the land, thereby precipitated the fight, as rightly held by the learned trial Judge. In short, nothing would really turn upon the statement of Muhammad Anwar Patwari. It is well settled that this Court should be slow to interfere orders of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction where the State he declined to prefer an appeal, and that unless the impugned order suffers from some inherent weaknesses proceeding from a disregard or misappreciation of the fundamental principles of the administration of criminal justice resulting in miscarriage of justice, this Court should not interfere. Khan Jan v. Said Faqir and others (P L D 1966 Pesh. 35) and Feroz Khan v. Captain Ghulam Nabi Khan and another (P L D 1966 S C 425) may be cited as just two of the several authorities available on the point.

11. In short, I find that the impugned order is wholly unexceptionable and there is no force in this revision which is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.