P L D 1987 Lahore 155 (PLP)

In brief the facts of this case are that on 15‑7‑1986 at about 7 a.m. Mst. Safeela Begum complainant was present in her house. Niaz Ali and Muhammad Yousaf, both deceased, were also present there. Zikria accused knocked at the door and asked them to come up. Niaz Ali and Muhammad Yousaf went out, where Abdul Aziz, Zikria, Muhammad Yahya and Amjad were present. The moment Niaz reached the road, Yahya petitioner gave Surya blow on his head. He fell down. Muhammad Yousaf tried to help Niaz but he was also given a Surya blow on head by Yahya accused He also fell down. Abdul Aziz fired from his gun which hit Niaz Ali on temporal region. Abdul Aziz then fired a second shot which hit on the temporal region of Muhammad Yousaf. The occurrence was also witnessed by Iftikhar Hussain. Mst. Safeela complain ant tried to intervene and got some injuries on her person. The petitioner and his co‑accused were arrested. This petition on behalf of Yahya is pressed only on one ground that the medical evidence was in conflict with the ocular account of the occurrence. The precise argument of learned counsel was that injury No. 3 on the person of Niaz Ali was "a 7 c.m. long incised wound on left parietal area cutting the left parietal bone. Brain was visible" which could not be caused by Surya and secondly that though Yahya is alleged to have given Surya blow on the head of Yousaf but according to the post‑mortem report there was no injury on his head. It was, therefore, argued that the case against Yahya petitioner was that of further enquiry.

2. I have heard the learned counsel and have perused the F. I. R. as well as the post‑mortem reports regarding the two deceased. It is correct that injury No. 3 was described as 7 c.m. long incised wound on left parietal but this would not mean that this injury on the person of Niaz Ali had been caused by a sharp‑edged, weapon. It may be observed that tears and splits could be produced by blows from blunt objects as well as by violent falls on sharp and hard projecting surfaces etc. Such lacerations result in avulsion of the skin and their edges are torne, jagged and irregular. As opined in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence (21st Edition revised by Sh. Abdul Haleem, Chief Editor, P L D p. 215) "occasionally on wounds produced by a blunt weapon or by a fall the skin splits and may look like incised wound when inflicted on tense structu res covering the bones such as scalp etc." In view of this opinion it cannot be said that injury No. 3, prima facie could not have been caused in the manner stated by the eye‑witnesses or that it was necessarily a wound caused by some sharp‑edged weapon. So far as the injuries on the person of Muhammad Yousaf are concerned injury No. 1 was on the outer edge of right eye. Injury No. 2, a lacerated wound was on the lower border of left ear. Injury No. 3 was below knee‑joint and injury No. 4 was on left lateral shoulder From a perusal of these injuries it could not be said that Muhammad Yousaf did not receive any blunt weapon injury on his head. I need not enter in detail discussion of the point involved in this petition. Prima facie I am of the view that the medical evidence is not in conflict with. the ocular account of the case. However, the question will remain open and will be decided by the trial Court after recording of evidence.

3. In view of the above discussion I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Any observation on facts will have no beating on merits of the case during trial. a. Q./M‑13/L Petition dismissed.