1993 P Cr (PLP)

(1) 13 c.m. long L-shaped surgically stitched wound with 12 black stitches on the left side of head, 6 c.m. above left ear and 5.5 c.m. above left eyebrow. (2) V-shaped surgically stitched wound on the left for head with total 8 black stitches 2.5 c.m. above left eyebrow and 2 c.m. to left of midline. (3) 8.5 c.m. bruise of dark brown colour on right side of head 6 c.m. above right ear and 6.5 c.m. to right of midline. (4) 5 x 15 c.m. superficial infected wound on the left side of face starting from outer border of the eye. Left eye was swollen and was of dark brown colour. On exploration skull was fractured into multiple pieces. Fracture lines ran through left frontal parietal temporal and occipital bones and also through right parietal bone. Left parietal bone was missing in an area of 5 x 2 c.m. Membranes were lacerated. In the opinion of P.W.8 all the injuries were ante- mortem. Injuries Nos.l and 2 were wounds of surgical intervention as mentioned in the Lahore General Hospital. Cause of death in this case was skull fracture and brain damage. Time elapsed between injuries and death was hospital death and time elapsed between death and post-mortem was 1 to 3 days.

6. P.W.1 Dr. Maqsood Ahmad Mughal medically examined Nazar Muhammad complainant and found the following injuries:- (1) Superficial abrasion 15 c.m. x 1 c.m. on medial and front side of left forearm lower part. (2) Redish bluish swelling 7 x 5 c.m. on the back of right scapula region. All the injuries were simple and caused by blunt weapon. Duration of injuries was about 1-1/2 hours.

7. Statement of P.W.13 Muhammad Karim, A.S.I. had been recorded to the effect that on 5-10-1988 on the disclosure made by Muhammad Yousuf appellant, he led to the recovery' of blood-stained hatchet P.2 from his residential house, which P.W.13 secured vide Exh.P.I. Ahmad appellant on the same day had produced Sota P.1 before P.13, who secured the same vide memo. Exh.P.H. It is pertinent to mention here that Sota P.1 was not blood stained and hatchet P.2 was blood stained. The reports of Chemical Examiner and Serologist Exhs.P.P. and P.O. are positive pertaining to P.2.

8. The appellants when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence against them and also the recovery of Sota P.1 and hatchet P.2 at the instance of Ahmad and Muhammad Yousuf, appellants respectively. Their denial is simpliciter. The appellants neither made statement on oath as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced defence evidence.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the State and the complainant at length and have perused the record. Appellant Yousuf had led to the recovery of blood-stained hatchet P.2 which was secured by P.W.13 vide memo. Exh.P.I. attested by P.W.7 Muhammad Yar and P.W. Ahmad Ali (given up). The occurrence in the present case took place on 22-9-1988. F.I.R. Exh.P.J. was recorded on 28-9-1988, whereas the recovery of blood-stained hatchet was effected at the instance of appellant Muhammad Yousuf on 5-10-1988. Muhammad Yousuf appellant was arrested on 1-10-1988 by P.W.13. The recovery of P.2 was effected from the house of the appellant which was accessible to others. It was not recovered from some locked room or box. Sota P.1 secured at the instance of Ahmad appellant was not blood stained. The recovery of hatchet P.2 at the instance of Muhammad Yousuf from his house is not confidence inspiring. P.W.7 Muhammad Yar who was allegedly an eye-witness of the occurrence, was declared hostile, but during cross-examination he had stated about the recovery of hatchet P.2 at the instance of appellant Muhammad Yousuf. P.W. Ahmad Ali, another independent eye-witness has not been produced by the prosecution. P.W.13 Muhammad Karim, A.S.I s statement has not been corroborated as to the factum of recovery by any independent witness of the locality. The recovery aspect of the case does not inspire confidence.

10. In the present case at first the local police incorporated Ruppet Exh.P.F. on the statement of complainant P.W.6 Nazar Muhammad to the effect that due to scalling over the common wall, the appellant had given beating to the children of the complainant and also abused when they were stopped. The appellants and the complainant exchanged hot words and meanwhile P.W.11 Mst. Nusrat Bibi wife of P.W.6 Nazar Muhammad had gone to the house of deceased Shan Muhammad, and Shan Muhammad when reached near the house of the complainant, Muhammad Yar (P.W.7) and Shafqat (P.W.10) had caught hold of P.W.6 and Shan Muhammad deceased was given injuries one after the other with the wrong side of hatchet and Ahmad had raised Lalkara and meanwhile the deceased had received injuries on his head and left eye. Surprisingly on 28-9-1988 the complainant P.W.6 moved an application Exh.P.K. to the police that he had wrongly mentioned the names of Shafqat and Yara about catching of the deceased, whereas they had caught hold of him to save him from the fight and both of them were the P.Ws. and not the accused. Thereafter amazingly the police drafted the F.I.R. Exh.P.J. with some additions. It has been brought on the record that P.W.7 Muhammad Yar and P.W.10 Shafqat Hussain had not supported the prosecution version. P.W.7 had stated that Ahmad appellant had Sota in his hand and in the hand of Muhammad Yousuf appellant he could not see anything, whereas P.W.10 stated that it was darkness in the Bazar. There was no electric light and he had asked the complainant not to quarrel with each other and he could not state who had injured whom.

11. The occurrence took place in the lane. No person from the vicinity had come forward to depose the truth. Only P.W.6 complainant Nazar Muhammad and P.W.11 Mst. Nusrat Bibi wife of P.W.6 have stated about the present occurrence. No independent person has supported the prosecution story. It has been brought on record that proceedings under section 107/150, P.P.C. were initiated against Yara and Shafqat P.Ws. only to intimate them to become eye witnesses and thereafter they had not supported the prosecution version. P.W.7 Yara had categorically stated that Shan Muhammad deceased was having a hatchet in his hand when he was quarrelling with the appellants in front of their door. The deceased participated in the fight on being armed with hatchet. P.W.10 Shafqat Hussain had stated that the electric light was off and there was darkness.

12. Pursuant to the above discussion, I am of the view that the case against the appellants was not free from doubt and giving them benefit of doubt I acquit both the appellants Muhammad Yousuf and Ahmad, from the charge. Muhammad Yousuf is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged. The connected Criminal Revision No.664 of 1989 has no force and is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-753/L Appeal accepted.