1989 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 307/34‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2)‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑Complaint delayed by three months‑‑Complainant receiving no injury though accused armed with fire‑arms‑‑Reasons given for acquittal by Trial Court, calling for no interference‑‑Witnesses related and interested‑‑No legal or factual grounds were made out for interfering with judgment of acquittal‑‑Interference declined. Rai Muhammad Nawaz Kharal for Petitioner. Abdul Qayyum Khan had filed a complaint against Amir Abdullah, Zia Ullah Khan and Sardar Khan under section 307/34, P.P.C. for an occurrence which took place on 25‑9‑1986. The learned Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, Mianwali who had tried the accused, acquitted them vide judgment, dated 22‑6‑1987. Abdul Qayyum Khan, petitioner has filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the said order.

2. The complainant's case at the trial was that he was attacked by Amir Abdullah armed with a pistol and Zia Ullah Khan and Sardar Khan armed with guns. The pistol shot fired by Amir Abdullah, according to him, had missed while the shots fired by Zia Ullah Khan and Sardar Khan had inadvertently hit Amir Abdullah accused. The ocular account was furnished by Abdul Qayyum complainant P.W.1, Abdul Hamid P.W.2 and Muhammad Iqbal P.W.3. The respondents during trial took up the plea that in fact the complainant and others had attacked Amir Abdullah and caused him injuries and that a case regarding that occurrence stands registered against Abdul Qayyum and others. It was explained by them that the injuries found on the person of Amir Abdullah respondents was the result of shot fired by the assailant in that case.

3. The learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents considering the facts that the complaint was filed after a delay of 3 months; that P.W. 2 was his real brother while Muhammad 1qbal is his nephew and so they were interested witnesses. The learned trial Magistrate also took note of the fact that even if the complainant had been arrested and lodged in jail, that should not have been the reason for filing complaint late in the Court as the same could have been done by one of the two witnesses who were not only related to the complainant/petitioner but had also seen the occurrence. The explanation given by the complainant that he filed the complaint late because the police had been extending him promises of registering the case was turned down by the learned Magistrate considering the fact that the challan about the same occurrence had been submitted against him to Court on 5‑10‑1985 and so from that date he must have also come to know that the police was not prepared to help him.

4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgment. The reasons given by the trial Magistrate in acquitting the respondents do not call for any interference. The observation made by the trial Magistrate about the non‑receipt of injuries by the petitioner, delay in filing the complaint and the witnesses in the complaint being related and interested is supported by positive facts which the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert. No other ground, legal or factual has been made out calling for in reference in the judgment of acquittal. S.A./A‑477/L Acquittal upheld.