1987 PLP 821 (SCMR)

(3) An incised wound 2" x 1/4" skin deep horizontally upper and lateral part of right scapula. (4) An incised wound 1/5" x 5" muscle deep horizontally in the middle of upper part right scapula. (5) An abrasion 3" x " in the middle and medical side of left scapula horizontally. (6) An abrasion 5" x 1/4" horizontally in between the scapula. (7) An abrasion 3" x 1/4" horizontally oblique lower part of right scapula. (8) An incised wound 1" x 1/4" x half inch skin deep ulner border palm of right hand. (9) An incised wound 2" x 1/4" x skin deep upper part right forearm. (10) An incised wound 2 "x 1/4" x skin deep horizontally left side of neck. (11) An incised wound l " x 1/2" muscle deep lateral part left buttock. (12) An abrasion 1 " x 1/4" left knee. (13) Two incised wounds 1 " x muscle deep in average local side of left upper arm. The deceased was found to have received only one injury on the head and Muhammad Habib P.W.10 was found to suffer two injuries during the incident. These are described as follows: ‑-- Jalal Din, deceased. An incised wound 15 c. m. x 2 c. m. and x bone cut on the mid line on the back of occipital region starting just below the top of head and was going downward. The bone was cut under the injury and a blood clod was present over the brain under the injury. Muhammad Habib P.W.10. (1) An incised wound 6 " x " muscle deep horizontal along the lower surface of left mandible. (2) A contusion 2" x " left scapula vertically in the middle.

7. The trial Court believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. His appeal before the High Court was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 25‑4‑1984. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that keeping in view the motive and the numerous injuries on the person of the accused /petitioner coupled with the fact that these were not explained by the prosecution, go to show that there is reasonable possibility that the version put forward by the accused‑petitioner may possibly be correct and that the High Court has not considered this question properly and that the reasoning of the High Court in rejecting the defence plea outright are not satisfactory.

9. We have gone through the relevant portions of the impugned judgment dealing with the defence version in paragraph 9 (at pages 9 and 10 of the judgment) and feel that there is some force in the aforementioned contention. We feel that this is a fit case for grant of leave to consider the question whether the High Court has followed the well‑established principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases. Leave is, therefore, granted for that purpose. M.I./S‑18/S Leave granted.