CHOUDHRY MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE
This criminal revision arises from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Kasur, whereby he on 12‑9‑1989 acquitted Muhammad Idrees. Muhammad Hussain and Bashir Ahmad respondents of the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The occurrence took place on 30‑7‑1988 at 11‑00 a.m. in village Santok Sar, Kasur, within the limits of Police Station `A‑Division' Kasur City. The statement Exh.P.C. of Khushi Muhammad, P.W.6 was recorded on the same day at 12‑OS a.m. in the hospital. The formal F.I.R. was registered at the Police Station on the same day. The motive allegedly was a quarrel between the children of the parties on the preceding evening of the occurrence. As for the main occurrence, it has been stated that at the eventful time, Khushi Muhammad, complainant, P.W.6, with his sons Sifat Elahi and Zulfiqar, deceased, were going to their houses from the garden to take lunch. When they reached near the Haveli of Bashir Ahmad, respondent, suddenly he (Bashir) empty‑handed, Muhammad Idrees armed with gun and Muhammad Hussain, respondent, armed with stick came out of the Haveli. On the Lalkara raised by Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Idrees fired shot hitting Zulfiqar on his left flank. Muhammad Hussain caused injuries with stick on the back of the chest of Zulfiqar, who fell down on the ground. The respondents/accused then ran away taking the weapons with them. Zulfiqar was removed to the hospital but he died as soon as they reached the hospital.
3. Dr. Rafiq Hussain, P.W.9, conducted the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Zulfiqar and found following injuries:‑‑
(1) An oval lacerated wound on the left anterio lateral chest in the lower part 2 x 2‑1/4 c.m. x abdominal cavity deep. The blood was coming out of burning present on the upper half of wound.
(2) A lacerated wound 4 x 1 c.m. x bone deep on top of head.
(3) A lacerated wound 4 x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the back of head.
The injury No.1 was caused by fire‑arm and the rest with blunt weapon. In his opinion the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries which collectively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No.1, individually was also sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Muhammad Iqbal, Inspector, arrested Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Idrees respondents on 30‑7‑1988. He arrested Bashir Ahmad, respondent on 2‑8‑1988. On 2‑8‑1988. Muhammad Idrees got recovered gun P.4 from his house. On the same day, Muhammad Hussain, respondent, got recovered Dang P.5 from his house. War, P.W.7 and Muhammad Iqbal, Inspector, P.W.10 had signed the recovery memoranda. It may be noted here that the gun was sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
4. To prove its case prosecution produced 10 witnesses. Khushi Muhammad, P.W.6, Zafar P.W.7, have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They have supported the version of the main occurrence in all material particulars. Khushi Muhammad also deposed about the background of the occurrence. Zafar, P.W.7 and Muhammad Iqbal Butt, Inspector, P.W.10 have supported the recovery of gun P.4 and Dang P.5 from Muhammad Idrees and Muhammad Hussain, respondents. Dr. Rafiq Hussain has proved the post mortem examination report. The rest of the evidence was/is of formal nature,
5. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the respondents denied all incriminating circumstances. They did not produce any evidence in defence.
6. Disbelieving the alleged motive, the ocular evidence and the evidence of recovery the trial Court has acquitted the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the respondents inasmuch as there was no inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that the eye‑witnesses had no enmity to involve the petitioner falsely in the case; that the recovery of the gun from Muhammad Idrees and Dang from Muhammad Hussain and the medical evidence lends support to the statement of the eye‑witnesses; and that the trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution case and the evidence produced by it without factual and legal justification.
Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
8. I have considered the matter carefully. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the trial Court has applied its conscious mind to the relevant evidence and circumstances appearing in the case and has given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by it. It is well settled that once an accused is acquitted of the charge, then the presumption of his innocence becomes double, so strong and exceptional grounds would be required for interference with the same. In the instant case, Khushi Muhammad, P.W.6 is the father of the deceased. War, P.W. 7, is a partner in the business of Khushi Muhammad, complainant. There was no serious motive to kill the deceased. Neither children nor the ladies in whose presence the children had quarrelled have been produced by the prosecution. Thus there was no direct evidence about the background of the occurrence. The learned trial Court has pointed out discrepancies/contradictions in the statements of Allah Wasaya, P.W. 5 and Khushi Muhammad, P.W.6. The evidence on file confirms these contradictions. On record it was proved that War and Khushi Muhammad, the two eye witnesses were partners in a business, yet Khushi Muhammad and War both have denied the partnership. This will show that they have given evidence with a motive other than that of telling the truth. The learned trial Court was of the view that the eye‑witnesses had not seen the occurrence. The reasons given by it in para. No.15 of the judgment find support from evidence on record and circumstances appearing in the case. The gun allegedly recovered from Muhammad Idrees, respondent, was not sent to the fire‑arm expert, it was his licenced gun. The recovery of gun alone will not connect him with the murder of the deceased. The Dang recovered from Muhammad Hussain was not stained with blood. So this recovery is also of no consequence. The judgment of the trial Court is neither perverse nor illegal. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts for the appreciation in evidence in such like cases. The submissions made by the learned counsel do not make out a case for interference with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal.
9. Pursuant to the above discussion, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed. The respondents are on bail. They stand discharged of bail bonds.
S.A./K‑16/L Revision dismissed.