1983 P Cr (PLP)

3. Dr. Abdul Aziz (P. W. 2), on the 1st May, 1977 at 8‑30 p: m. medically examined Mukhtar Ahmad deceased and found five swellings on the head and a contusion mark on right shoulder. On the 3rd May, 1977, Mukhtar Ahmad expired in District Headquarters Hospital. Faisalabad and at 12‑13 p. m., Dr. Major Yousaf Ali (P. W. 1) performed the autopsy and found four diffused swellings and a confused swelling on the head and one contusion mark 3" x 2" on lateral side of right shoulder joint. There was haematoma under the whole scalp and a depressed fracture of left parietal bone and the vault of the skull. In his opinion the deceased had died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the head injuries which were sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Balal Ahmad (P. W. 10) and Zulfiquar were also medically examined. The former had eight injuries, of which one was an incised wound on the head and the rest were contusion marks while the latter had a lacerated wound on the bead and a contusion mark on the thigh besides an abrasion on the left forearm. Dr. Abdul Aziz, on the 4th May, 1977, also examined the appellants. Jan Muhammad was found to have a lacerated wound and an abrasion on the left forearm. Muhammad Tufail had a swelling on the left hand, a suspected fracture of the radius and fracture of the first metacarpal. Muhammad Amin had two incised wounds, one on the right arm and the other on the right side of skull above the right ear one swelling on the left forearm ; three abrasions on the back of left forearm and a contusion mark on the left shoulder. The duration of all these injuries was opined to be four days.

4. The appellants pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations. They took up the plea of self‑defence. They stated that at the time of the occurrence they were irrigating their land in Square No. 75 of Chak No. 34‑G. B. by the water‑course running in between Squares Nos. 36 and

37. Due to the decrease in the water‑supply, they went upstream for a check‑up and found that Balal Ahmad (P. W. 10), Zulfiqar and the deceased were diverting the water ; the deceased carrying a toka, Balal Ahmad a kassi and Zulfiqar a dang. Muhammad Amin appellant started filling the cut when the deceased gave a toka blow on his head and Balal Ahmad inflicted a kassi blow on his arm. In self‑defence, the appellants caused injuries to the deceased, Balal Ahmad and Zulfiqar with the wrong side of kassi. They led no evidence in defence.

5. Some of the findings of the learned trial Court are reproduced below:- Niaz Ahmad P. W. 9 says that when they reached the hospital, he went to the police station before the inured had been examined by the doctor and narrated the incident to the A.‑S. I. and he accompanied him to the hospital. It is evident that the A.‑S. I. delayed the registration of the case till the issuance of medico‑legal reports. The above facts indicate that the F. I. R. was lodged with an inordinate delay and after due deliberations." therefore, .medical evidence has, lesser corroborative value because the F. I. R. was prepared keeping in view the nature and number of the injuries given in medico‑legal reports." "As many as 11 accused have been implicated in this case. Had all of them taken part in the occurrence and caused successive blows to the victims then the number of the injuries upon the persons of Mukhtar Ahmad, Zulfiqar and Balal does not justify the implication of all the accused in this case." `The injuries found upon 'the persons of Jan Muhammad, Muhammad Tufail and Amin could not be the result of brick bating. It appears that complainant party caused soti blows to Muhammad Tufail, Amin and Jan Muhammad accused at the time of occur rence and a sharp‑edged weapon was used for causing injury No. 1 to Muhammad Amin. The medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case to the extent discussed above." "The version of P. Ws. 8, 9 and 10 as regards the alleged motive is least convincing, so it is not acceptable. Prosecution has failed to prove the alleged motive." "Niaz Muhammad mentioned in the F. I. R. that Muhammad Amin passed by the khal while having a watch over the water. It means that canal water of Muhammad Amin accused was flowing in the water-course. Abdul Majid P. W. 6 admits that the accused own land in Chak No. 34;G. B. which lies at the tail of the watercourse. It is evident that Amin, Tufail and Jan Muhammad were irrigating their land at the time of occurrence."

6. The acquittal of the eight co‑accused has not been challenged in appeal or revision. The learned counsel for the State appearing before me has not controverted the above findings. I am of the view that the findings are unexceptionable. The investigation of the case, to say the least, was not above board. In view of the above, the entire prosecution case becomes highly doubtful. There is hardly any t circumstance worth the name to distinguish the case of the appellants" from that of the acquitted co‑accused. Even if we were to resort to the statements of the appellants themselves, they shall have to be accepted or rejected in toto. But we find the defence taken by the appellants is in a way supported by the prosecution itself.

7. As a result of the above discussion, I accept the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants and acquit them. By a short order they have already been directed to be released if not required in any other case. M.Y.H. Appeal allowed.