1968 P (PLP)

4. The prosecution suppressed the evidence of the doctor, who had examined Jabbar P. W., on 5‑4‑1967. This Court, on 16‑7‑1968, ordered the learned Sessions Judge to bring on record the additional evidence of the doctor, who had examined Jabbar D. W.

5. Dr. Hassan Murtaza Naqvi, D. W, 3, stated that on 5‑4‑67 at 4 p.m., he examined Jabbar D. W. and found the following injuries on his person:‑‑ (1) A sharp‑edged wound " x " on the middle of right ear vertical in direction cutting the cartilage throughout on the upper " of the ear. " x 1/5" of the part of ear (back portion) had been cut sharply. There was coagulated blood"' around the car and clothes. (2) Right elbow joint was painfully swollen. In the opinion of the doctor, injury No. 1, which had been caused with a sharp‑edged weapon, was grievous while injury No. 2; which was caused by a blunt weapon, was found to be simple. The doctor was also of the opinion that these injuries could not be self‑inflicted.

6. The prosecution case against the petitioner rests solely on the testimony of Allah Ditta, Inayat, Noora and Ahmad Yar n Ws. The recovery of gun (P. 1) has no corroborative value because there is nothing on the record to show that this gun was actually used in the commission of the offence.

7. All the aforementioned witnesses have suppressed the injuries having been caused to Jabbar D. W. In the F. I. R , Haitam P. W. had stated that Ahmad Yar P. W. had told him that prior to the occurrence, he had given a stick blow to Jabbar D. W., but Ahmad Yar P. W. denied having caused any injury to labbar D. W. The other alleged eye‑witnesses also did not mention the presence of Jabbar P. W. at the scene of the offence or any injuries having been caused to him. The defence version, on the other hand, fits in more with the circumstances of the case and, therefore, there is a reasonable possibility that the defence put forward by the petitioner might be true. In Sardar Ali v. The Crown (P L D 1953 F C 93) it was observed:‑ "In a criminal case, it is the duty of the Court to review the entire evidence that has been produced by the prosecution and the defence. If, after examination of the whole evidence, the Court is of the opinion that there is a reasonable possibility that the d.‑fence put forward by the accused might be true, it is clear that such a view reacts on the whole prosecution case. In these circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, not as a matter of grace, but as of right, because the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt,"

8. In Muhammad Siddique v. The Crown (P L D 1954 F C 312) it was observed:‑ "The duty of a Court in cases of this kind is to review the entire evidence and circumstances at the close, before arriving at a conclusion regarding the truth or falsity of the defence plea. All the factors favouring plea in the accusation must be placed in juxtaposition to the corresponding factors favouring the plea in defence, and the total effect should be estimated in relation to all questions, viz.:‑ (i) is the explanation of the accused satisfactorily established by the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case? (ii) If the answer to question (i) be in the negative, is there yet a reasonable possibility that his explanation might be true, so as to cast a reasonable doubt upon the prosecution case? In the present case, Jabbar D. W. had received a grievous injury on a vital part of his body; which the prosecution has tried to suppress. There is nothing on the record to discredit Jabbar's testimony and, therefore, there is a reasonable possibility that what he has stated might be true so as to cast a reasonable doubt upon the prosecution case."

9. I also find that there has been inordinate delay in the lodging of the F. I. R. Police Station Mitrue is only ten miles from the place of occurrence. The occurrence in this case took place at about Maglirab Wela on 4‑4‑1967, but the F. I. R. was lodged on 5 4‑1967 at I p.m. One of the P. Ws., especially Allah Ditta. who is a tenant of Haitam P. W. could have early gone straight to the Police Station after leaving Ahmad Yar P. W. at Gara More dispensary. There is no explanation forth coming on the record to explain this delay. Taking all the afore‑mentioned circumstances into consideration, I find that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. I, accordingly, accept the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence of Mukhtar Ahmad petitioner and acquit him. He should be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Petition accepted.