1972 PLP 549 (SCMR)

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The respondents, Faiz Ahmad and Hashim Ali, who are real brothers, were tried for the murder of their co‑villager, Muhammad Siddique, under section 302/34, P. P. C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who found them guilty and sentenced each of them to transportation for life. The respondents preferred an appeal in the Lahore High Court, which was accepted and they were acquitted. This petition for special leave to appeal by Ahmad Din, the father of the deceased, is directed against the acquittal order. The parties are residents of village Bhopiwal and belong to two opposite factions of Ahl‑e‑Hadith in the village, one led by the petitioner and the other by Faiz Ahmad, respondent. There was a dispute between the two factions over the Imamat of the village mosque. A month prior to the occurrence, which took place on the 10th of October 1966, Ilyas, P. W., a paternal uncle of the deceased, was insulted and beaten by Faiz Ahmad. Ilyas had openly declared that this insult and beating would not go unavenged. The deceased sustained two stab wounds, one on the neck and the other in the chest cavity. He also received an incised wound on his right wrist. Hashim, respondent, also suffered an injury, which was an incised gaping wound 5 ' x 1 " x " deep in the wall of his chest, a very vital part of the body, but fortunately it did not turn out to be grievous. Faiz Ahmad, respondent, denied his presence in the fight. Hashim admitted his participation and pleaded the right of self defence, alleging that he was attacked by the deceased with a knife, whereupon he gave two blows with a chhuri, which he had picked up from the barber's thara where the occurrence had taken place. This injury on the person of Hashim was not explained by the prosecution witnesses, who instead tried to suppress it. The learned Judges in the High Court have carefully analysed the evidence and have come to the conclusion that as the motive for the attack lay with the complainant party, and a serious injury, which was inflicted on Hashim, was not explained by the prosecution, a strong possibility of the truthfulness of the defence version could not be ruled out. They have on that account given the benefit of doubt to the accused‑respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that the learned Judges in tile High Court, in giving effect to Hashim's plea of self‑defence, have not correctly appraised the evidence, and that, at any rate, the right of self‑defence, as claimed by Hashim, was exceeded by him as the deceased was given three blows in succession. The fact that Faiz Ahmad, respondent, did not receive any injury in this incident supports his plea that he was not present at the fight. It seems that he was roped in falsely and given the traditional role of having held the deceased while his companion Hashim gave blows. This fact and the attempt by the prosecu tion to suppress the injury caused to Hashim and the further fact that the motive lay with the complainant party to make the attack, very strongly support the High Court's view that the defence version is possibly true. In this view of the matter, the benefit of doubt was rightly extended to the respondents. The mere fact that the &ceased received three injuries whereas Hashim got only one, does not by itself show that Hashim had exceeded the right of self‑defence. His right to defend himself q continued as long as he had reasonable apprehension of harm from his adversary. It is well‑recognised that the right of self‑defence cannot be m adulated step by step nor can it be measured in golden scales. This petition is dismissed. Leave refused.