1989 PLP 102 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 11th December, 1988. The petitioners, Munna, Khushi Muhammad and Mehr Din were tried under section 307, read with section 34 of the P.P.C. for murderous assault upon Murad Ali P.W. by the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Kasur and were by his judgment dated 18‑6‑1975 convicted and sentenced to three years R.I. Their appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, on 18‑8‑1977.

2. The petitioners' 4th co‑accused Sher Muhammad had died on 7‑2-1975 that is before the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate was handed down.

3. The incident resulting in injuries to Murad Ali P.W. occurred at 2.00 p.m. on 1‑8‑1972 in the field of Murad Ali in village Metta, Tehsil Kasur, and was reported to the police by Attar Din P.W. at 8.00 p.m. on the same day. Murad Ali P.W. was examined by Dr. Zafar Iqbal (P.W. 4) and was found to have as many as 17 injuries on his person, 11 being lacerated wounds and the remaining being contusions. In the opinion of Dr. Zafar Iqbal P.W., which was based upon the X -Ray reports of Dr. Anwarul Haq. Assistant Radiologist (P.W. 8), 5 of the injuries were grievous in nature. Some of the lacerated wounds were on the parietal region, forehead, face and nose. It was in evidence that Murad Ali P.W. had remained in hospital for 24/25 days.

4. Of the petitioners, Munna and Khushi Muhammad are real brothers; they are not related to Mehr Din, petitioner, or the deceased accused person Sher Muhammad.

5. The prosecution case, as deposed to at the trial by Murad Ali P.W. was as follows. He was owner of agricultural land and so were Sher Muhammad and Mehr Din. About a year before this incident, there was consolidation of holdings in the village, in which some land belonging to Murad Ali P.W. was allotted to Sher Muhammad and Mehr Din and some land belonging to Sher Muhammad and Mehr Din was allotted to Murad Ali. While Murad Ali P.W. had given possession of his land, the said accused persons had not given possession of their land to Murad Ali P.W. This led to litigation which was decided in Murad All P.W.'s favour. The accused persons had, therefore, a grudge against him.

6. On the day of occurrence, it was the turn of water of Murad Ali P.W., his tenants Attar Din and Ruldoo P.Ws. were looking after the irrigation water and Murad Ali P.W. was present at his land in that connection. In the meantime, the accused persons Munna armed with a takwa, Khushi Muhammad armed with a hatchet and Sher Muhammad and Mehr Din armed with Dangs arrived at the spot and attacked him. Munna and Khushi Muhammad gave blows with the wrong sides of their weapons on his head. Mehr Din hit him with his Dang on his left flank and Sher Muhammad hit him with his Dang on his right wrist. Murad Ali P.W. fell down. Then Munna hit him with his takwa on his face and Khuslli Muhammad hit him on his left arm. Then all the accused persons gave him more blows. Attar Din and Ruldoo reached and on seeing them the accused ran away.

7. Attar Din and Ruldoo made similar statements with this difference that according to Ruldoo, both Khushi Muhammad and Munna were armed with takwas.

8. It will thus be seen that all the injuries on the vital parts of the body of Murad Ali P.W., according to the prosecution evidence, were given by Khushi Muhammad and Munna, petitioners. The dispute over land was between Murad Ali P.W. on the one hand and Sher Muhammad and Mehr Din accused on the other. It is not clear from the record why the petitioners Munna and Khushi A Muhammad should have joined with Mehr Din and Sher Muhammad in lanching the murderous assault upon Murad Ali P.W. The prosecution led no evidence to support the motive part of the story. In other words, there was no evidence that in the consolidation of holdings, the land of Murad Ali P.W. had been allotted to Mehr Din and Sher Muhammad and the land of Mehr Din and Sher Muhammad had been allotted to Murad Ali P.W, and that there had been litigation between them. Then it was not without significance that though both Munna and Khushi Muhammad, petitioners, were armed with sharp‑edged weapons, yet out of 17 injuries, that Murad Ali P.W. suffered, not one was sharp‑edged weapon injury. As observed above, Ruldoo P.W. said that both Munna and Khushi Muhammad carried Takwas and, thereby contradicted the other two P.Ws. according to whom, only Munna, petitioner, was armed with a Takwa. A Takwa was recovered from Munna, petitioner but it was not shown to be connected with the crime; it had no blood on it. No weapon was recovered from the remaining three accused persons. I am, therefore, of the view that the prosecution case against Munna and Khushi Muhammad, petitioners, was not free from reasonable doubt and that they were entitled to acquittal.

9. As observed above, the injuries allegedly caused by Mehr Din, petitioner, t had not caused much damage. It may well be that the incident had occurred suddenly on the‑spur of the moment. In any case, as he did not cause any injury) on a vital part of Murad Ali P.W.. I do not think that the offence committed by him falls under section 307, P.P.C. Besides the period he spent in jail during the trial, and then after his conviction by the trial Magistrate, the petitioner Mehr Drn I remained in jail for more than six months after the dismissal of his appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I would, therefore, set aside the conviction o Mehr Din under section 307, P.P.C. and convict him under section 325, P.P.C. As he has suffered the ordeal of a very long and protracted trial, and eleven years have elapsed since the dismissal of his appeal by the Sessions Court, I would reduce his sentence to imprisonment already undergone.

10. The revision petition of Munna and Khushi Muhammad is accepted. Their conviction and sentence are set aside and they are acquitted. They shall stand discharged of their bail bonds.

11. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. S.A./M‑1070/L Partly accepted.