1988 PLP 29 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Agha Umar Draz who is present in person and has argued the petition himself. The petition is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 24th November, 1980. It is against the acquittal of respondents 1 to 8 of charges under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge Lahore vide his judgment dated 18th March, 1980, and subsequently the State appeal against the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The deceased in this case is son of the petitioner namely Asif. The occurrence is stated to have taken place in Yunuspura (Mughalpura) Lahore at 6 p.m. on 15th April 1979 and the FIR was lodged promptly on the same day at 7-30 p.m. Two of the respondents out of the eight, namely, Masood Akhtar and Mohammad Aslam had been injured in the course of the occurrence. Three of the eye-witnesses, namely, Mahdi Hasan, Mohammad Ashraf and Zulfiqer were also injured, besides the deceased. The petitioner who is father of the deceased also claimed himself to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. There are recoveries in the case from the accused party but both the Courts below have not considered the prosecution evidence as reliable and have either believed the defence version. The defence version is that the deceased was a bad character. He was a sodomist and a desperado. He was thrown out of the college because he beat up the principal. Thereafter criminal case was registered against him. According to the defence version on the day of occurrence the deceased forcibly caught hold of Hammad Nizam respondent aged 13 years and dragged him into the Baithak of Zulfiqar PW. Both the deceased and Zu1fiqar PW bolted the door from inside and the deceased wanted to commit sodomy with the boy. Thereupon the boy (Hammad Nizam respondent) started raising hue and cry. In the meantime his brother Jawad Nizam respondent and cousin Abdul Aleem respondent came outside the Baithak and knocked the door. The deceased opened the door. When the two respondents (Jawad Nizam and Abdul Aleem) asked him to release Hammad Nizam respondent, the deceased refused to do so and began to abuse. In the meantime Zulfiqar PW brought a Chhuri and assaulted Abdul Aleem respondent but he snatched his Chhuri from him. Thereafter they grappled with one another in the course of which the deceased received injuries and fell down. The trial Court acquitted the respondents because the defence version when put in juxtaposition to the prosecution version had rightly appeared more plausible. The finding of the trial Court was that the accused party had the right of private defence to get their young boy released from the deceased who was being subjected to gratification of unnatural lust. Subsequently when the State appeal against the acquittal of the respondents was preferred, a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissed the same on the grounds that the reasons recorded by the trial Court for acquitting the respondents were sound and the judgment of the trial Court was neither perverse nor illegal, unjust or unfair on any account. The petitioner attempted to argue before us that although the State appeal was supposed to be heard by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in the instant case it was heard by a learned Single Judge who passed the impugned order. In order to find out the correct position the original record was summoned from the High Court, and it is evident from the same that the State appeal in this case was heard and decided by. a Division Bench consisting of K.M.A. Samadani and Aftab Farrukh, JJ, who both had also signed the impugned order. The copy which has been attached with the petition for leave to appeal is not correct. The petitioner further argued that the prosecution version was the correct version of the occurrence and that there was no justification on the part of the trial Court for acquitting the respondents on the ground of the exercise of their right of private defence. We have heard the petitioner at great length. But in our considered opinion it is not a fit case for interference in the impugned order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The petition is, therefore dismissed. S . Q . / U-10/ S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.