THE STATE Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J: ‑ This Criminal Appeal against acquittal arises from the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby he on 29‑9‑1986 acquitted Muhammad Shafi and 6 others, respondents of the charges under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution case was that Muhammad Shafi and 6 others, the respondents variously armed launched murderous assault on Safdar Ali, Ghazanfar Ali and Zafar Ali and thereby caused the death of Safdar Ali and injuries to Ghazanfar Ali complainant and Zafar Ali P.W. on 28‑12‑1983 at 7.00 a.m., in village old Nokhar of P.S. Farooqabad, on account of election rivalry.

3. To prove its case, prosecution produced 17 witnesses in all. Ghazanfar Ali P.W. 8 and Zafar Ali P.W. 9 were produced as eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. They claim to have seen the respondents variously armed launching attack and causing death of Safdar Ali. Saeed Ahmad P.W. 6 deposed about the recovery of guns from Muhammad Shafi, Tanveer and Kabir respondents. Dr. Khalid Yazdani Malik P.W. 14 conducted post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Safdar Ali deceased on 28‑12‑1983. On the same day he examined Zafar Ali P.W., Muhammad Shahbaz respondent,. Muhammad Zahid respondent, Tanveer and Kabir respondents and Muhammad Nawaz with regard to their injuries. On the same day Dr. Abdul Qayyum P.W. 1 examined Ghazanfar Ali complainant with regard to his injuries. Tasaddaq Hussain Shah Inspector, P.W. 17 had investigated the case, The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.

4. When examined under the respondents denied all the incriminating circumstances. They raised the plea of self‑defence stating that the deceased alongwith Ghazanfar Ali, Zafar Ali and Haider armed with fire arms had come to the house of Rafiq respondent and attacked Zahid, Shahbaz, Kabir and Tanveer and caused injuries to them. Muhammad Nawaz son of Muhammad Rafiq co‑accused fired m exercise of the right of self‑defence resulting in death of Safdar Ali and injures to Zafar and Ghazanfar Ali P.Ws. In defence no witness was produced.

5. The learned trial Court has disbelieved the motive, ocular evidence, incriminating recoveries and while believing the plea of self‑defence raised by the respondents acquitted them of the charges.

6. Learned counsel for the State argued that the respondents have been acquitted without legal and factual justification, inasmuch as, the two eye witnesses namely Ghazanfar Ali P.W. 8 and Zafar Ali P.W. 9 are quite dependable; that by the fact of injuries, presence of Zafar Ali and Ghazanfar Ali P.Ws. on the spot is very much established, that their statements do not suffer From contradictions and discrepancies; that presence of the injured accused is also an admitted fact and that the occurrence took place in the manner as stated by the eye‑witnesses.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State with care and have reviewed the entire evidence that has been produced by the prosecution, the statements of the respondents recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., and the circumstances appearing m the case. We do not feel persuaded to agree with him. We find that the trial Court had applied conscious mind to the evidence on record and has given sound and cogent reasons for disbelieving motive, ocular evidence as well as the recovery of weapons from some of the respondents. The accused party was injured and had received fire‑arm injuries which are neither self‑suffered nor self‑inflicted. The eye‑witnesses have not satisfactorily explained the injuries of the accused persons. The eye‑witnesses are also interested persons. The recovery witnesses are not confidence inspiring. On our independent assessment of the evidence, we are also of the view that no implicit reliance can be placed on the statements of the eye‑witnesses and it is highly doubtful that the occurrence took place in the manner as stated by the prosecution witnesses. That being the position, there is no option but to accept the statement of the accused/respondents that they had acted in exercise of the right of self‑defence of their persons. It is well‑settled that once an accused person, is acquitted of the charge then strong grounds would be required for interfering with the judgment of acquittal which we do not see in the case in hand.

For what has been said above, there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

M.Y.H./S‑303/L. Acquittal upheld.