1985 P Cr (PLP)

(5) A contused wound on the left side of the scalp half inch above injury No.4 measuring 2" x " x fracture of the bone underneath. (6) A contused wound on the left scalp three inches above the ear top and three inches away from the left eye brow oblique 2 " x " x fracture of the bone underneath. (7) A contused wound on the bridge of the nose near the eye; brow " x " x fracture of underlying bone direction transverse. (8) An oblique incised wound on the left side of the neck cutting the trachea oesophagus and vertebrae beneath the posterior portion of the body of second vertebrae was slightly intact and rest of it had been cut through. The great blood vessels on the right side of the neck were also cut completely. (9) An oblique incised wound on the left side of the root of the neck deepest in the centre while at the edges it was superficial measuring 6" x 1 " x 2" deep in the centre cutting the 6th vertebrae partially, great blood vessels completely. The outer two inches of the wound was cutting only the skin. The inner wound Ill' in length was cutting. only the skin and muscles partially. (10) An incised wound on the front of the left side of the chest in the middle half inch away from the mid line and 2 " away from the left nipple measuring 2 " x " x cutting the fifth rib completely. (11) An incised wound on the front of the left arm oblique 3" above the elbow measuring 2 " x " x muscles deep. (12) A contusion mark on the front of scrotal skin and over the end of glans penis measuring 3" x 2". In his opinion, the death was due to haemorrhage and shock caused by the injuries. Injuries Nos.3, 6, 8 and 9 could cause the death individually. Injuries Nos.1, 2, 5, 7 and 10 were grievous while the rest were simple. Injuries Nos.4, 6, 7 and 12 were caused by blunt weapon and the others with sharp‑edged weapon. The death was within 2/3 minutes and the time between death and post‑mortem was within 24 hours. On 14‑12‑1970, the same doctor examined Muhammad Hussain respondent and found following injury on his person:‑ A swollen area on the back of the right elbow measuring 1‑3/4" x 1 " with contusion mark in the back of the right elbow in the centre measuring " x ". The injury was simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon within 36 hours.

5. The case was investigated by Maqbool Elahi S.I., who being prisoner of war could not be examined. The respondents were arrested by the police on the spot, Manzoor Hussain P. W.10 produced blood‑stained Kulhari Exh.P.l of Muhammad Hussain respondent and Rustam P.W.11 produced blood‑stained Takwa Exh.P.2 of Rahim Bakhsh respondent. The blood‑stained clothes Exhs.P.3 to P.5 and Exhs.P.6 to P.8 of the respondents were got removed from their persons and taken into possession by the police.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, out of whom Muhammad Ali P.W.9, Manzoor Hussain P.W.10 and Rustam P.W.11 have given the ocular account of the occurrence. Ghulam Qadir P.W.7, Manzoor Hussain P.W.10 and Rustam P. W.11 have supported the recovery of blood‑stained clothes and weapons of offence from the respondents. The Serologist Report Exh.P.Q shows that the clothes as well as the weapons were stained with human blood.

7. The respondents when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied all the incriminating circumstances and raised the plea of false implication.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts; that the eye‑witnesses had not only seen the occurrence but had also caught hold of the respondents on the spot and that the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents on flimsy grounds. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is not a fit case for interference with the judgment of acquittal which is supported by sound and cogent reasons.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care and have examined the judgment of the learned trial Court. I find that the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in accordance with the guiding principles laid down by the superior Courts for the appreciation of such like cases. The learned trial Court has disbelieved the motive and the eye‑witnesses on sound reasons. On my independent assessment I find that the complainant has admitted in his evidence that Mst. Ata Bibi was married to him by the consent of her father and as such, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the motive.

10. Coming to the ocular account, I find that the statements of the eye‑witnesses are not in consonance with the probabilities. It is difficult to believe that the eye‑witnesses who were empty handed had chased duly armed respondents and snatched weapons from them to prosecution case that the respondents had surrendered their weapon without any resistance does not appeal to reason. Muhammad Hussan respondent although allegedly arrested on 12‑12‑1970 was got medical. examined on 14‑12‑1970. The delay indicates that Muhammad Hussain was not with the police on 12‑12‑1970. Otherwise, he would have got medically examined on 12‑12‑1970 or 13‑12‑1970. To my mind, this circumstance alone may falsify the claim of the eye‑witnesses that they had apprehended the respondents on the spot. The conduct of the eye‑witnesses also runs counter to the natural probabilities inasmuch as that after having apprehended the respondents they did not talk to them. Rustam P.W.11 states that although 50/60 persons had come to the spot yet he did not narrate the incident to any of them. Furthermore, the injuries found on the person of the deceased caused by blunt weapon were not explained in the F.I.R. There is nothing in the F.I.R to show that the wrong side of hatchet and Takwa were used in the occurrence. The eye‑witnesses improved their evidence to bring the same in conformity with the medical evidence when they stated that the respondents had used the weapons from both blunt and sharp sides. It is well‑settled that once an accused person is acquitted then the presumption of his innocence becomes double and that strong and exceptional grounds are required for interference with the same which do not see in the case in hand.

11. For what has been stated above, it is not a fit case for interference with the judgment of acquittal. The revision is dismissed. H.A.K. Acquittal maintained.