1989 PLP 171 (SCMR)

Qazi Muhammad Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 18th June, 1988. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the four convicts/petitioners in the following background. The present petitioners along with three others namely Ghulam, Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Afzal were tried for offences under sections 307/325/148/149, P.P.C. But the trial Court (Judicial Magistrate) acquitting Ghulam, Sher Muhammad and h1uhammad Afzal by giving them benefit of doubt on the ground that they were not directly connected with the motive, convicted the petitioners under section 307/34, P.P.C. and sentenced each of them to 3 years' R.I. plus each to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000 to the injured. Their appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge and their Criminal Revision was dismissed by the Lahore High Court Lahore. The injured in this case is Ata Muhammad P.W. The occurrence took place on 2 May, 1985 at Maghribwela in Mauza Kot Najabat. F.1.R. was lodged at 10‑10 a.m. on 3 May, 1985. The petitioners and the acquitted co‑accused were arrested soon after the registration of the case. There are four eye‑witnesses of the occurrence including the victim who have been relied upon by all the Courts below. The victim had eighteen injuries on his person; including the injury which was declared dangerous to life. He had been severely beaten. The motive was that two months before the present occurrence Ata Muhammad victim along with others had fought with Hakam Khan petitioner who had got a case registered against him. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised three arguments. Firstly that F.I.R. was lodged after considerable delay. Secondly, that Mehdi Khan petitioner in his statement before the trial Court had stated that only he and Naubahar petitioner had caused injuries to the victim Ata Muhammad and that the other two petitioners were not present. And thirdly, that before asking if he wanted to record his statement as a witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., the accused petitioner should have been put on oath. All the three arguments are without any substance. The argument regarding delay in lodging of the F.I.R. had been duly considered by all the Courts below and rightly rejected. The second argument had also been attended to and correctly rejected in the light of the ocular testimony as well as the case of the acquitted co‑accused being on different footing. The third argument regarding non‑compliance with the provisions of section 340(2), Cr.P.C. is erroneous for in the instant case the accused‑petitioner had refused to get his statement recorded as witness and also refused to take the oath and therefore the oath could not be A forcibly administered to him. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. M.I./M‑600/S Petition dismissed.