1977 P Cr (PLP)

S. Maqbool Hussain Shah for the State. Date of hearing: 26th February 1976. This revision petition has been filed by Ijaz Ahmad son of Said Ahmad petitioner directed against the judgments dated 31‑10‑1964 passed by the learned trial Court and that of the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala (Ex- officio Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot), dated 15‑4‑1965, whereby he was convicted and sentenced to two years' R. I. under section 307, P. P. C. and his appeal was dismissed. 2. The motive set up by the prosecution in this case is that the petitioner was found the complainant to the uncle of the petitioner reported spoiling bitchuman lying on the road for its construction and matter. The petitioner resented this approach by the complainant to his uncle and aome to him to remonstrate. This led to an attraction between them. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 20th March 1964 at 8 a.m. within criminal jurisdiction of Police Station, Pasroor, the petitioner inflicted two injuries in the belly of P. W. I Muhammad Din complainant with his knife, out of which one was declared grievous. The petitioner was challaned under section 307, P. P. C. on the strength of the statement made by the complainant before the Magistrate, 2nd Class on the day of occurrence at 11.15 a.m. vide Exh. P. A. and formal F. I. R. Exh. P. A./1 was recorded by Yusuf Shah Naib Muharrir P. W. 10. Learned trial Court relying on the sole testimony of the complainant supported by the medical evidence found the petitioner guilty under section 307, P. P. C. and as already mentioned convicted and sentenced him two years' R. I. 4. The petitioner while appearing before the learned trial Court pro fessed his innocence and denied the ownership of knife P. 1 and the factum of its being stained with blood and attributed his involvement due to enmity of the P. W. with his father. He produced in his defence D. W. Abdul Rahim who stated that at about 9 a.m. on the day of occurrence, he came from the village and dropped at the Bus‑Stand, a place situated at a distance of about half a furlong from the hospital. On inquiry from Muhammad Din some boys beat com plainant he was informed by him that be. While he was being taken to hospital this D. W. also accompanied him and found Sardar and Rashid talking to him on the way: He further stated that these two P. Ws. were inimical towards the father of the petitioner. 5. As mentioned earlier in my judgment the case of the prosecution is based only on the sole statement of the complainant who averred that the petitioner was the boy who stabbed him. It is noteworthy that in this case the prosecution did not itself consider sufficient to solely rely on the evidence of the complainant and produced seven witnesses to corroborate his statement. Out of these seven Witnesses six denied having seen the petitioner stabbing the complainant and P. W. 2 Buta when cross‑examined by the Prosecuting Inspector, specifically stated that there were four boys in all who came and approached the victim but he was positive that the petitioner was not one of those four boys. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned trial Court as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not take into consideration this very important aspect of the case. He has argued that as the com plainant to his uncle reported against the petitioner, therefore, this name was prominently in his memory. Moreover it was also submitted that Ijaz Ahmad petitioner being a member of prominent family; therefore it was convenient for the complainant to name him out instead of real culprits who were non‑descript of the locality. It is also on the record that when the complainant was taken to the hospital, he was approached by the P. Ws. who were inimical towards the family of the; petitioner. In these circumstances the possibility of petitioner's being named just at the fancy of the complainant cannot be excluded. The petitioner is present in Court. Even after 12 years he looks a very frail person who would even now be hardly in a position to go out for such a serious crime. May be, he might be with the boys at that time and for that reason his naming out by the complainant looks plausible. Undoubtedly there would be no bar or exception to place reliance on the sole testimony of the complainant who made a dying declaration and named this petitioner specifically supported by the medical evidence in this case yet the rules of prudence always demand some sort of corroboration to the testimony of the victim, particularly when he was spoken to by the enemies of the petitioner while on his way' to the hospital. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to the inadvisability of the prosecution in cross‑examining a hostile witness but the fact remains that it has done so. If something comes on the record from the mouth of the witness who is otherwise unconnected and unrelated with the parties, in favour of the accused persons, the benefit of doubt will always go in his favour and not in favour of the prosecution. After going through the entire evidence on the record a lurking suspicion is there in my mind that may be this act was committed by one of the four boys who also came at the spot with the petitioner and that the petitioner was made a scapegoat for the sin .A of others or at the fancy of the complainant who believed in his mind that he would not have been hurt if he would not have complained to the uncle of the petitioner about his past conduct. The possibility that this bias existing in his mind against the petitioner goaded him into a firm belief that this attack was arranged by this thin and lean boy with the help of some other stalwarts who wanted to feed his vanity. In view of this suspicion, which is made out from the attending circumstances of the case and the evidence of seven P. Ws. produced by the prosecution in this case, I am of the considered opinion that the case of the prosecution is rather doubtful. It is well-established principle of criminal justice that let numerous guilty persons be acquitted but not one single innocent person be condemned. Looking at the petitioner once again, I am convinced that the possibility of his being wrongly involved in this case cannot be excluded. The case is before me after 12 years of the occurrence and lot of water has flown under the bridges by this time. 6. The result is that I accept the revision petition, set aside the convic tion and sentences of the petitioner and acquit him. Since he is on bail he is discharged from his bail bond. Revision allowed.