MUHAMMAD SULTAN Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J. ‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed in the following circumstances:

2. Muhammad Aslam respondent was tried for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. and vide judgment dated 9th December, 1980 of the trial Court was convicted under the aforesaid section and sentenced to death plus fine. On appeal Lahore High Court, Lahore set aside his conviction and sentence and acquitted him. The deceased in this case is Muhammad Gulzar and petitioner Muhammad Sultan is his father. The occurrence took place on 28th January, 1980 at 9‑30 p. m. Muhammad Aslam respondent was apprehended on the spot alongwith human blood‑stained Chhuri. The eye‑witnesses are Muhammad Sultan petitioner father of the deceased and Muhammad Rafiq not related to the deceased. It may be pointed out that Muhammad Aslam respondent has also received incised wounds on both his hands so much so that according to the medical evidence his right hand has been incapacitated. The motive is that the respondent wanted to commit sodomy with the deceased. The High Court acquitted the respondent because in the circumstances it correctly declined to place reliance on tide ocular testimony, and it proceeded to arrive at its conclusion on the basis of the statement of the respondent himself who had not denied the occurrence but gave his own version of the same. Respondent had stated that the deceased was a bad character. He called the ‑respondent to a deserted Dera on some pretext and bolted the door of the room from inside. Thereafter, the deceased wanted to commit sodomy on the respondent and when the respondent resisted he picked up a Chhuri and inflicted number of blows with the same which were warded off by his hands. Eventually the respondent succeeded in snatching the Chhuri from his hand but before he could get out of the room the deceased picked up a bala hitting him on his left leg. Since the deceased attempted to give further blows the respondent in order to save himself caused injuries and as a result the deceased fell down. He also produced some documents to show that the deceased's father and brothers had been involved in criminal cases. The eye‑witnesses' account is not to the effect that they had seen the deceased being given blows by the respondent because had they reached the spot then it may have not been possible for the respondent to attack the deceased. The next point is that the version of the respondent was being supported by the medical evidence so far as the injuries on his palms as well as left leg were concerned. According to the prosecution version the respondent was apprehended on the spot with Chhuri by the P.Ws. and had the injuries on his hands, the nature of which indicated that he had been permanently incapacitated so far as his one hand was concerned., The injuries could have not been self‑suffered. The appellate Court on the basis of this scrutiny of evidence correctly arrived at the conclusion that it was a case in which the prosecution version and the defence version were to be placed side by side and then the Court had to judge which of them was more plausible and if both such versions were possible the one favourable to the accused was to be preferred. It was on the basis of this settled principle that the respondent was acquitted.

3. We have heard learned counsel in the light of the record. His main argument was that the prosecution version should have been considered as the correct version. In other words he wants us to reappraise the evidence. But in the circumstances when either view is possible and the appellate Court had accepted the defence version as correct which was more favourable to the accused, in our view, no interference was called for in the impugned judgment. In that view of the matter this petition is dismissed.

4. S . Q./ M‑366/ S Petition dismissed.