MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus LAL KHAN AND 2 OTHERS S.M. Nazim.,MUHAMMAD SHARIF , LAL KHAN

ORDER

This petition for revision is directed against the judgment dated 2‑8‑1984 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, whereby he acquitted Lai Khan, Ehsanullah and Abdul Majid respondents of the charges under section 302/34 of the P.P.C.

2. The FIR. version of the occurrence was that on 16‑8‑1983 Muhammad Sharif complainant and his father Muhammad Nazir were cutting fodder in Square No.30 in the area of Chak No.140‑S.B. Sillanwali. Suddenly Muhammad Sarwar and Ehsan Khan, armed with hatchets, and Lal Khan, Nazir alias Jeero and Abdul Majid, empty handed, came there. Lal Khan, Nazir and Abdul Majid raised lalkara and simultaneously Muhammad Sarwar gave a hatchet blow on the head of Muhammad Nazir deceased. Thereafter, Ehsan Khan gave him hatchet blow hitting the forehead. Muhammad Akbar and Inayat Khan P.Ws got attracted to the alarm raised by the complainant and Muhammad Nazir. On seeing them the accused persons ran away from the spot. Muhammad Nazir was removed to Civil Dispensary, Sillanwali, but on reaching there he breathed his last.

The motive for the occurrence was that about two months prior to the occurrence Muhammad Sarwar accused installed a door in the common wall to which the deceased took exception. The dispute over the door continued and resulted in exchange of hot words between Sarwar accused and the deceased on the night preceding the day of occurrence. It is alleged that the accused persons harboured grudge against the deceased on that score.

The case was registered at the instance of Muhammad Sharif, son of the deceased, on the same day at 9/10 a.m. Muhammad Afzal, A.S.I. investigated the case. He arrested Ehsan Khan, Lai Khan and Abdul Majid accused on 31‑8‑1983. On 3‑9‑1983 they led to the recoveries of blood‑stained hatchets P‑3 and P‑4 and blood‑stained Lathi P‑5, respectively, which were taken into possession vide memos Exhs.PJ, PK and PL. After the investigation the aforesaid three accused were challaned. Sawar and Nazir, who were named as accused in the FIR, were not challaned in view of the supplementary statement allegedly made by the first informant.

3. The respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against them. No evidence was led in defence.

4. At the trial the prosecution examined two eye‑witnesses, namely, Muhammad Sharif complainant and Inayat Khan. Another eye‑witness, namely, Muhammad Akbar, was given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused. Inayat Khan did not support the prosecution and was cross‑examined by the P . P . with the permission of the Court. The prosecution case, therefore, rests on the solitary statement of Muhammad Sharif complainant. The recoveries were allegedly witnessed by aforementioned Akbar, given up as won over, and hostile witness Inayat Khan.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant is consistent in his statements that Ehsan Ullah respondent gave a hachet blow on the forehead of the deceased, which fact finds support from the medical evidence, therefore, the impugned judgment, at least to the extent of acquittal of the aforesaid respondent, needs interference by this Court.

6. I have gone through the record with the help of the learned counsel. Muhammad Sharif (PW.6) is the solitary eye‑witness in the case. Admittedly, the relations between the complainant family and aforementioned Sarwar were strained. Abdul Majid is the real brother of Sarwar. Ehsan is their brother's son and Lal Khan respondent is the son of their cousin. In that view of the matter the evidence of Muhammad Sharif would require corroboration from an independent source which, unfortunately, is not coming forth. It need also be mentioned that he made material improvements at the trial. In the FIR, with which he was duly confronted, he had stated that Lai Khan, Nazir and Abdul Majid were empty‑handed while at the trial he came up with the version that Lal Khan had a hatchet whereas Abdul Majid was armed with a Sota. In the FIR the role attributed to Abdul Majid and Lal Khan was that of Lalkara, but at the trial he stated that Lal Khan gave a hatchet blow to the deceased on the head and Abdul Majid gave him a Sota blow. He was confronted with the FIR wherein it was not so recorded. In the circumstances, no ground for interference with the impugned order is made out. This petition is dismissed in limine.

S.G.D./M‑465/ L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.