MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus GUL MUHAMMAD

This is a report made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Campbellpur, under section 438, Cr. P. C. for ordering a retrial of the accused acquitted by the trial Court.

2. (1) Gul Muhammad, (2) Mian Muhammad, (3) Sikandar, (4) Mst. Nek Bukhat and (5) Muhammad Aslam had been tried under sections 148, 452 and 342/149, P. P. C. by Magistrate 1st Class, Pindigheb for having attacked and caused injuries to Mst. Zulaikhan complainant, Mst. Sarwar and Muhammad Ramzan P. Ws. on 3‑11‑1972 at rotiwela Gul Muhammad was said to have been armed with a hatchet, Mian Muhammad, Sikandar and Aslam with sticks and Mst. Nek Bukhat with stone occurrence, Mst. Zulaikhan complainant and Mst. Sarwar each had received three simple injuries by blunt weapon while Muhammad Ramzan five simple injuries of which one at the head was caused by a sharp‑edged weapon and the remaining with blunt weapon. The prosecution case was supported by the said injured persons as well as ocular witnesses Ghulam Nabi (P. W. 3) and Nawab (P. W. 7). The stand taken by Gul Muhammad accused was that Sadiq and Dilpazir, the brothers of Ghulam Nabi P. W. along with their father Muhammad Ramzan (P. W. 1) had actually attacked Muhammad Aslam accused which had led to a free fight. in the course of which Adam had also received injuries. In support, Ghulam Muhammad had been examined as a witness for defence. The other accused had totally denied their involvement. The trial Court found that the F. I. R. had been filed belatedly and that the prosecution evidence was vague and far too insufficient, and as such acquitted the accused persons by his judgment dated 30-11‑1974. Tile present report had been made upon a revision brought by Muhammad Ramzan P. W. before the Additional Sessions Judge, Campbellpur, who has held the order of acquittal as "not correct, legal or proper".

3. I have gone through the evidence on record as well as the judgment of the trial Court and the report of the revisional Court. I find that the, reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge merit consideration. In the first place, the factum of injuries sustained by Muhammad Aslam had not been proved according to law and yet the trial Court had, on the assumption that the same was in evidence, held the prosecution guilty of suppression of the injuries. Secondly, the trial Court was not justified n holding against the prosecution their failure to specifically point out as to which of the injuries suffered by the prosecution witnesses had been inflicted by which of the accused persons. In a tight involving many persons, particularly if it is a free fight as the accused wanted the Court to believed the prosecution is not expected to account for each and every blow received by the witnesses. Moreover, when the defence itself admits the occurrence but come, out with its own version, the Court has to examine as to which of the two versions was more compatible with the evidence. I need not go into the other points raised by the lower revisional Court as the same may come up for decision in the retrial of the case. The shortcomings pointed out are sufficient to justify the re‑trial of the case. I, therefore, accept the recommendation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, set aside the acquittal of toe accused and direct that the case be retried against them. It is, however, clarified that none of the observations made in this order or i.e, the order of lower revisional Court should influence the finding of the trial Court. The record of the case shall be returned forthwith.

Revision allowed.