1983 PLP 314 (SCMR)

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑Qurban Hussain petitioner seeks Leave to Appeal against the acquittal of the four respondents of offences under section 307/326/34, P. P. C.

2. Chanan Din, Muhammad Siddiq, Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Rafique, respondents, were tried by Khan Hakim Khan Baluch, S. 30 Magistrate, Chakwal, for the . aforementioned offences, on the F.I.R. which was lodged by Qurban Hussain petitioner on 14‑10‑1976. According to the F.I.R. Qurban Hussain was present at this house alongwith his nephew Akhmar Hussain, when Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Rafique, respondents, passed in front of his house. He asked them as to why they had constructed a well on his land although his (i.e. complainant/petitioner's) wife, Mst. Noor Begum had also told them not to do so. The parties started abusing each other and an altercation took place between them. In the meanwhile Chanan Din armed with spear and Muhammad Siddique armed with a lath came over there. Muhammad Siddique gave a lath! blow on the shoulder of Akhmar Hussain while Chanan Din gave a spear blow on the back of Qurban Hussain complainant. Akbar and Rafique Respondents, only gave fist blows to them. Thereafter the four accused‑respondents ran away. The matter was reported to the police by the petitioner and after arrest of the accused they were put up for trial before the learned Magistrate at Chakwal.

2. At the trial Akhmar Hussain and Qurban Hussain P. Ws. Supported the prosecution story. The respondents denied their guilt. Chanan Din respondent explained that in fact, the aforementioned two P. Ws. had come to their house and attacked him and his wife, and that Akbar and Rafique respondents who were related to him came there and inflicted injuries on the P. Ws. in self‑defence. The learned trial Court, however, acquitted the accused‑respondents finding that the complainant party was the aggressor and had not explained the injuries suffered by the four respondents during the incident. It also believed the defence version as being the more plausible one. The complainant (petitioner herein) filed a revision against their acquittal before the High Court. After considering the evidence on the record the High Court upheld the finding of the trial Magistrate. The petitioner (complainant) has, therefore, filed the present petition for Leave to Appeal.

3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel before us is that the learned Courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence and have erroneously held that the respondents had acted in self‑defence. He has not raised any question of law, nor has he pointed out that the learned Judge in Chamber has either omitted to consider or misread any material piece of evidence, but submitted only that erroneous conclusions have been drawn from the evidence. We have, however, gone through the judgment of the Courts below and find that they are based on cogent reasons. Moreover since the petitioner has not cared to file the copies of the state ments of the witnesses on the record we are not in a position to say whether a view different than that taken by the learned Courts below was eve possible. Nor, as already observed, has the petitioner's counsel alleged that the said Courts had overlooked any material portion of the evidence.

4. For the foregoing reasons we do not consider this to be a fit case fort grant of leave. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.