1968 PLP 1422 (SCMR)

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 1st April 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 858 of 1964). Appeal against acquittal‑ --Lower Courts giving valid cogent‑reasons for acquitting accused‑Petition for Special leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S.

302. Saeed Ahmad Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali Sheikh, Attorney for the State. JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The respondents in this case were sent up for trial under sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 of the ;Pakistan Penal Code but the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Lyallpur acquitted them all holding that two of the accused persons, namely, Fateh Din and Nazar Hussain were not at all present in the fight and that the remaining three acted in the exercise of their right of self‑defence. The State did not appeal from this judgment of acquittal but one Muroed Hussain went up in revision to the High Court. The High Court refused to interfere as in its view the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge could not be said to be wrong or perverse. The said Mureed Hussain has now come up for special leave to appeal to this Court. He contends that the High Court judgment is perfunctory. We have, however, examined even the judgment of the Sessions Court. We find that in this case the conclusion of the Sessions Court is justified by the finding that the prosecution witnesses had deliberately suppressed a very material fact, namely ; that on the accused side two of the :accused had received as many as 20 injuries. On the side of the complainant two persons were killed but they received 24 injuries in all. This fact, by itself, would show that there was serious confrontation between the two parties and that this was not a case in which the accused could be said to be the aggressors. Both parties evidently came there prepared to fight, armed with sharp‑edged weapons, as is evident from the injuries received by both sides. It was not a case of a sudden quarrel or a sudden fight over the turn of water. The complainant party had deliberately taken excess water from the accused whose turn came next to them. evidently to start a fight. This taken with the earlier enmity, would show that it is the com plainant side who had not only the greater motive for starting this fight but had also come prepared for it. In the circumstances the possibility of the aggression starting from their side could not be excluded. If the Courts below have taken such a view it cannot be said that they have acted perversely. In this state of the findings of the Courts below we are no in a position to say that the acquittal was unjustified. Valid and cogent reasons had been given for arriving at this conclusion which appealed also to the High Court. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere and dismiss this petition. Leave refused.