FAQIR MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE Ch. Bashir Khan , Daud-ul-Hassan
The petitioner was tried under section 307, P.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate, Liaqatpur for murderous assault upon Siraj Din P.W.1 on 12‑1‑1977 at about 9‑00 p.m. The petitioner denied the charge. To prove its case prosecution produced 4 witnesses. Siraj Din P.W.1, Muhammad Hanif P.W.2 gave ocular account of the occurrence. Abdul Khaliq A.S.I., P.W.3 recorded the F.I.R. and investigated the case. Dr. Hafiz Abdul Wahid P.W.4 examined Siraj Din P.W. on 14‑11‑1977 at 12‑30 p.m. He found one small rounded lacerated punctured wound at the other side of the right ankle joint. On X‑Ray, the injury was declared grievous. The doctor was of the opinion that the injury was caused within 24 hours. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. He produced 3 witnesses in defence. The trial Court convicted the petitioner under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced him to 3 years' R.I. and a fine of RS‑300, in default thereof to three months' R.I. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge because of the non‑examination of Radiologist converted the conviction from section 307, P.P.C. to section 324 and reduced the sentence to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.3,000, in default thereof to further R.I. for 6 months, hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Courts below did not appreciate the case in accordance with the guiding principles laid down by the superior Courts for the appreciation of such like cases. He agreed that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F. I. R. and that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case.
Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the occurrence took place on 12‑11‑1977 at 10‑30 p.m. since it was a night occurrence and the question of identity of the assailants is very much material, therefore, I am of the view that it is a case of inordinate delay and the possibility that the assailants could not be identified at the time of occurrence, cannot be excluded. Had the culprit been identified, then, he would have been charged much earlier. I further find that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case that Siraj Din was injured on 12‑11‑1977 at 8‑00 p.m. because Dr. Hafiz Abdul Wahid who examined the injured on 14‑11‑1977 at 1230 p.m. opined that the injury was inflicted within 24 hours, meaning thereby between 13/14‑11‑1977. Muhammad Hanif P.W. 3 is son of Siraj Din complainant. He, too, did not see actual firing by the petitioner on the complainant. There was previous litigation between the parties. The possibility that the petitioner was involved on account of suspicion that he might have committed the crime is very much there. For all these reasons I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Giving him benefit of doubt, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge.
S. G. D. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.