1988 PLP 394 (MLD)

Sheikh Muhammad Islam for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th December, 1987. Muhammad Nawaz petitioner herein was sleeping with his family members in the courtyard of his Dera on 29‑7‑1973. His wife Mst. Hayatan, and mother Mst. Khairan as well as Mst. Fatima and their guest Mst. Assalat were also sleeping near him. At about l I p.m. he woke up on hearing the noise and saw Riaz accused/respondent armed with rifle dragging Mst. Assalat P.W. by her arm; Muhammad Nawaz petitioner and his mother Mst. Khairan tried to rescue Mst. Assalat. The accused/respondent however, pushed Mst. Khairan back whereupon the petitioner picked up a Sota and started beating accused/respondent. At this Rehman co‑accused of the respondent (not challaned by the police) started firing at them but none was hit. The respondent also leaving Mst. Assalat ran towards south‑eastern corner of the Dera and opened fire with rifle on the inmates of the house but no body was injured. Their alarm attracted Salah and Muhammad Nawaz P.Ws. At this, both Riaz accused/respondent and his companion Rehman made good their escape. It was alleged that the respondent had attempted to abduct fist. Assalat forcibly but due to timely intervention of the P.Ws. he could not fulfil his design. On the following day at 10 a.m. petitioner lodged a report Ex. P.M. at Chamevwala Bus Stand with AST Muhammad Saleem (P.W. 9) on the basis of which F.I.R. under sections 366/511 and 506, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Sahiwal, district Sargodha and after necessary investigation the respondent was challaned but Rchman was declared innocent and let off.

2. At the trial prosecution examined nine witnesses. Muhammad Nawaz petitioner who appeared as P W. 1, Mst. Hayalan as P.W. 4, Mst. Shadan as P.W. 5 and Mst. Assalat as P W. 8, are the eye‑witnesses of the occurrence‑ Salah P.W. 2 and Nawaz (P.W. 7) are the Wajtakker witnesses. Saleem Khan AST (P.W. 9) narrated about the investigations conducted by him. The respondent denied the allegations in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C.

3. The learned trial Court believing the prosecution case convicted the respondent under sections 366/511 and 506, P.P.C. and sentenced him to three years, R.I., under each count directing that both sentences shall run concurrently vide judgment dated 30‑5‑1974 passed by Magistrate Section 30, Shahpur. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, who vide his order dated 18‑3‑1975 partly accepting the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent under section 506, P.P.C. and altered his conviction from sections 366/511 to 447, P.P.C. and sentenced him to two months, R.I. and a fine of Rs.

500. Being dissatisfied thereby the complainant/petitioner filed the instant revision challenging the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Although it is not specifically stated but the purpose of filing this revision is that by setting aside the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge the order of conviction passed by the trial Court should be restored.

4. A learned Judge of this Court by his order dated 22‑5‑1975 issued notice to the State observing that although the respondent has not filed any revision against his conviction yet it has to be examined whether the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case was reliable. This revision, it may be stated, has come up for final hearing after many years.

5. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel has put in appearance. Since the case is very old, therefore, I think it is not proper to adjourn this case any further. I have examined the record with the assistance of learned State counsel.

6. Having gone through the prosecution evidence produced in support of I allegation, against the respondent, I find that prosecution case is highly improbable and the charge against the respondent has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is important to note that the complainant/petitioner specifically stated that when the respondent was dragging Mst. Assalat he had given him beating with a Sota but neither Mst. Assalat was shown to have suffered any scratch due to dragging by the respondent nor the respondent was proved to have suffered any injury on his person. Again it is not believable that A the petitioner was able to give stick blows to the respondent who at that time was armed with rifle. Most ridiculous part of the story is that the respondent fired from his rifle from close range yet none of the inmates of the house and particularly the petitioner had been injured. The prosecution version is nothing but a cock and bull story. The conviction of the respondent even under section 447, P.P.C. is not sustainable. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of the respondent is hereby set aside and he is acquitted. In the result this revision for enhancement of sentence automatically fails. M.Y.H./M‑535/L???????? Order accordingly.