2005 PLP 436 (YLR)

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the record especially the injuries received by appellants Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Aslam and Qasim Ali, the statement of Muhammad Yousaf appellant made in answer to Question No. 10 under section 342, Cr.P.C. and have also given anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar.

10. From the side of the complainant party Muhammad Sharif lost his life. There are two injuries on his person. Injury No.2 is attributed to Muhammad Yousaf appellant which is on the waist while Injury No.1 is attributed to Muhammad Rafique who was neither arrested, nor challaned nor tried as, as per record, he was found innocent during the course of investigation. The other person from the complainant side, namely, Muhammad Ali P.W. who was stated to be injured and was got medically examined, has one injury on his index‑forger coupled with complain of pain on the back of neck. Dr. Muhammad Siddique (D.W.1), during cross examination, admitted that there was possibility of causing Injury No.1 with friendly hands. Muhammad Yousaf appellant/accused received ten injuries which the said doctor found on his person which are as under:‑‑ (i) Lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. scalp deep on the forehead, 5 c.m. above the left eye brow from the nearest point; (ii) Lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. scalp deep on the forehead, 6 c.m. above the lateral 1/3 of left eye brow. (iii) Lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. scalp deep on the forehead 3‑1/2 c.m. medial to the Injury No.2. (iv) An incised wound 1‑1/2 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. skin deep on the forehead, 5 c.m. above the medial margin of right eye. (v) Lacerated wound 6 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. scalp deep on the left side of head, 7 c.m. above the left pinna with swelling around. (vi) Lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. scalp deep on the occipit 2 c.m. lateral to the medial 9 c.m. from left pinna. (vii) Incised wound 9 c.m. about 4 c.m. deep upto scapular bone, cut margin of bone visible and palpable by the hand fingers. (viii) An abrasion with redness 25 c.m. x 5 c.m. on the back of chest across the both upper parts of the shoulder joints from the right medial margin of scapula to the point 8 c. m. medial from the tip of left shoulder joint. (ix) Swelling on the upper and lower eye lids, lids severely edematous, sub‑conjunctival hemorrhage thus producing the black eye. (x) An incised wound 5‑1/2 c.m. bone deep from the middle of first pharynx of left middle finger to the lower half of palm, also incised wound in the line 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. deep at the third pharynx. Qasim Ali appellant was also medically examined. He also received following five injuries on his person: (i) A lacerated wound 6 c.m. x c.m. scalp deep on the top of head, 7 c.m. above from the mid point between two eye brows, swelling around the wound about 9 c.m. x 3 c.m. (ii) A lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. superficial on the tip of right shoulder joint. (iii) A lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 1‑ c.m. superficial at the lateral end of right clavical slight swelling around present. (iv) Lacerated wound 8 c.m. x c.m. skin deep swelling around 20 c.m. x 10 c.m. at the forearm on ulnar side. In the middle half of right forearm. (v) Swelling on the dorsum of left hand in the region of 1st and second metacarpal bones. Muhammad Aslant appellant received six injuries. He was also medically examined on the same day. The doctor found the following injuries on his person:‑‑ (i) An abrasion 1 c.m. x c.m. on right tempro‑mandibular joints. (ii) An abrasion 9 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the right arm at upper 1/3rd on front in oblique fashion downward. (iii) An abrasion with swelling 5 c.m. x 3‑ c.m. on the right arm in the lower half 8 c.m. above the elbow joint on the front. (iv) Abrasion with swelling 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. on right elbow joint at the back. (v) A bruise 12 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the back of left shoulder joint in the scapular region. (vi) An abrasion 15 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the back of left shoulder at the lower margin of right scapula on oblique line.

11. Statement of Muhammad Yousaf appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In answer to Question No.10, while explaining the occurrence, he submitted as under:‑‑ "Ans. I have been falsely involved in this case. We were in possession of the disputed lhata. Muhammad Sharif deceased and others wanted to forcibly occupy this Ihata by ousting us from there. On the day of occurrence Muhammad Sharif deceased and others came to the disputed Ihata armed with Dangs and hatchets to forcibly oust us from our lhata. My licensed gun was there. Muhammad Sharif deceased and others attacked me in order to forcibly occupy the said Ihata, but I resisted whereupon Muhammad Sharif deceased armed with a hatchet and others accompanying him were armed with a hatchet and Dangs. They started causing injuries to me. Some blows also hit on my licensed gun. I apprehending danger to my life fired a shot hitting Muhammad Sharif deceased. When Muhammad Aslam and Qasim Ali accused came for my rescue in the Ihata on my alarm, they were also belaboured with Dangs by the persons accompanying Muhammad Sharif deceased. Muhammad Sharif deceased and others accompanying him trespassed my Ihata and committed aggression. I fell unconscious at the spot. Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Iqbal Son of Sharif, Muhammad Iqbal son of Riaz, Muhammad Ali and Bashir Ahmad P. Ws. were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. My co‑accused, namely, Allah Yar, Muhammad Siddique, Ali Muhammad and Shera were also not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. The complainant party fabricated a false story."

12. Having looked the case from every angle and having sifted grain from they chaff, I find that it is a case of two versions. The Court has to see which version is correct and near to the truth if put the same in juxta position. From the perusal of the statement of Muhammad Yousaf appellant/accused, the injuries received by the appellants and the damage caused to the complainant party, moreover the occurrence having taken place at the Ihata of the appellants party I am of the considered opinion that the version put forth by the appellants (in both the criminal appeals) seems to be near to the truth and more plausible than the version given by the prosecution. On the same set of evidence, five co‑accused of the appellants have already been, acquitted by the learned trial Court. So the result of the above discussion is that it was a case of right of self‑defence which was not exceeded by the appellant party. Resultantly, both the appeals i.e. Crl. Appeal No.101 of 1992 (Muhammad Aslam etc. v. The State) and Crl. Appeal No.114 of 1992 (Muhammad Yousaf v. The State) are allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the case. They are on bail and shall be discharged from their bail/surety bonds. H.B.T./M‑769/L Appeals allowed.