1968 PLP 1277 (SCMR)

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High, Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 3rd May 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1967/Murder Reference No. 62 of 1967).

S. 302‑Plea of self‑defence‑No evidence on record to sustain the plea‑Conviction under S. 302, held, rightly upheld by High Court‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State. ORDER ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑The petitioner Atta Muhammad and one Chaughatta were convicted under section 302/34, P. P. C. and both of them were sentenced to death for the murder of Muhammad. They were also convicted under section 326/34, P. P. C. and each of them was sentenced to seven years' R. I. with fine of Rs. 500 or in default to further simple imprisonment for six months for causing injuries to three of the prosecution witnesses. On appeal the convictions and sentences of Chaughatta were set aside and he was acquitted by the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore. The convictions and sentences of the petitioner, however, were confirmed. The present petitioner was examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. and stated that on the day of occurrence he was present in his house alone. The deceased accompanied by 20 25 persons including some of the prosecution witnesses and others came in front of hii house armed with balams, takwas, chhavis and sticks. They abused him and broke open the door of his house. Muhammad attacked him with balam and then he fired shots with his gun and as a result of that the deceased as well as Mst. Fatima who had reached the spot received injuries. The learned Judges in the High Court found that two persons, namely, Shamira and Ahmad had been falsely implicated by the prosecution witnesses and they were acquitted by the trial Court. On an examination of the judgment of the trial Court, however, we find that the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted these accused not on any positive finding that they had been falsely implicated but that the possibility of their being implicated falsely could not be ruled out having regard to their enmity with the informant in this case. The learned Judges then observed that as the prosecu tion witnesses had falsely implicated those two acquitted accused it would not be safe to rely on their testimony with respect to the two appellants before them unless it was corroborated by some other evidence on the record. In the case of Chaughatta they found that there was no such corroboration and therefore acquitted him. In the case of the present petitioner, however, it was found that his own admission that he was present at the time of the occurrence and caused injuries to the deceased and Mst. Ghulam Fatima furnished sufficient corroboration in the absence of there being anything on the record to establish his plea of self‑defence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Judges in the High Court were wrong in accepting one part of the statement of the petitioner and rejecting the other part. His statement as a whole should have been accepted and they should have considered what offence, if any, the petitioner had committed. We are not impressed by this argument because the learned Judges have given their reasons for not accepting the plea of self‑defence. It has been pointed out that if the deceased and his companions were armed with deadly weapons they would have certainly caused some injuries to him. Further there was no evidence on the record to show that the door of his room was broken. In this view of the matter the plea of self‑defence was rejected and his admission about causing injuries to the deceased and Mst. Fatima was found to have corroborated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. This case does not call for interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.