1987 PLP 1417 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑ This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Hadayat Khan petitioner against the acquittal of Muhammad Nawaz and Gul Bahar by the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide its judgment, dated 8th November, 1980. Muhammad Nawaz and Gul Bahar were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi under sections 302/34, P.P.C. for committing the murder of Abid Hussain deceased son of Hadayat Khan petitioner, but they both were acquitted. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed a revision in the Lahore High Court, Lahore against their acquittal which was dismissed. The occurrence took place on 23rd May, 1977 at 8 p.m. in Lehri Di Dheri, village Salitha, Police Station Kahuta, District Rawalpindi. The FIR was lodged by Hadayat Khan petitioner father of the deceased at 7‑15 a.m. on 24th May, 1977. There are no recoveries in this case from Muhammad Nawaz and Gul Bahar. However, there were two eye‑witnesses namely Mazhar Hussain and Ghulam Rabbani PWs who are cousins inter se and related to the petitioner. Mazhar Hussain PW had received injuries in the course of the occurrence. According to the medical evidence the deceased had one incised wound on the abdomen whereas Mazhar Hussain PW had two incised injuries and one abrasion on his person. These injuries were simple in nature. However, Muhammad Nawaz respondent had more than 9 injuries on his person in the form of contused wounds, incised wounds, abrasions and bruises. These injuries were simple in nature and one of them was caused by sharp‑edged weapon whereas the remaining had been caused with blunt weapon. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to how these injuries were suffered by him. In the same way there is a blunt weapon injury on the person of Mazhar Hussain PW and there is also no explanation for the same. The motive advanced in this case is that about a couple of months before the occurrence the deceased had admonished Muhammad Nawaz respondent when he was taking photographs of girls who were proceeding to the well for fetching water. It was in this background that the respondents are said to have attacked the deceased. The prosecution version is that on the fateful day the deceased alongwith Nawab Khan and Mazhar Hussain PW was going to drive the cattle. When they reached the spot they noticed that both the respondents were sitting there armed with knives. On seeing the deceased they attacked him. The deceased was given a knife blow in his belly by Muhammad Nawaz respondent and when Mazhar Hussain PW went to rescue him Gul Bahar respondent gave him two knife blows on his back. It is stated that Nawab Khan and Ghulam Rabbani had injured Muhammad ~Nawaz and Gul Bahar respondents in order to rescue the deceased and Mazhar Hussain P.W. The findings of both the courts below are that the two eye‑witnesses produced in this case were interested and inimical, that no explanation had been offered at the trial as to why the FIR was lodged after a delay, and that the motive was far fetched. Again both the Courts below have attached more importance to the defence version which appeared to them more probable. The defence version was that Muhammad Nawaz respondent was assaulted by the deceased and Mazhar Hussain and another when he was going back after searching his goat. The number of the injuries received by Muhammad Nawaz respondent indicate that the complainant party must have been the aggressor and that Muhammad Nawaz respondent might have caused a single injury to the deceased in the exercise of his right of self‑defence. Learned counsel for the petitioner‑complainant attempted to argue that even if there were as many as nine injuries on the person of Muhammad Nawaz respondent which might not have been properly explained by the prosecution, there was no justification for acquitting him and his companion when his knife blow to the deceased had proved fatal. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In our view in the judgment and orders of the Courts below there had been a correct appraisal of the evidence in this case and no interference is called for. The result is that this petition is dismissed. M.I/H‑12/S Petition dismissed.