SURAJ MAL Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ Sh. Khalil-ur-Rahman , Ch. Muhammad Tufail and Malik Rehmat Khan Awan

The petitioner, Suraj Mal, has moved this revision petition under section 439 read with section 435, Cr.P.C. against the judgment of Rao Muhammad Hayat Khan, learned Sessions Judge, Kasur dated 16‑5‑1964 whereby he acquitted the accused‑respondent Muhammad Ishaq of the charge under section 302, P.P.C.‑

2. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused‑respondent Muhammad Ishaq aged 21 years was tried for committing the murder of his mother‑in‑law, Mst. Raheemi widow of Dalpat Khan on 26‑4‑1982 at about 8‑00 p.m. within the area of Chak No. 30 Baloke, Police Station Pattoki, District Kasur. Surai Mal, complainant P.W.7 was resident of village Hanjran Kalan whereas Dhup Khan husband of his wife's sister lived in village Baloke Chak No.30. On 26‑4‑1982, Suraj Mal P.W.7, Juma Khan P.W.8 and Saimal P.W.9 went to meet above referred Dhup Khan. After meeting him at about 8‑00 p.m. all of them returned back on foot for village Hanjran Kalan. Near the field of Khushi Muhammad Arain, they were attracted upon a noise and ran to the spot. They saw the respondent giving stick blows to his mother‑in‑law. The‑respondent was apprehended by them along with his stick. On account of the injuries received by her, Mst. Raheemi died, at the spot. The motive for the commission of the crime is that the deceased had married her daughter Noor Jan to the respondent‑accused and that he demanded money from the deceased but she refused to oblige him. The accused‑respondent was taken to the Police Station by the witnesses which is at a distance of 8 miles from the place of occurrence.

3. Muhammad Ashiq S.I. investigated the case. He took into possession the stick P.7 vide memo. Exh.P.E. The accused‑respondent was arrested by the witness. The dead body was sent to mortuary for post‑mortem examination. Blood‑stained earth from the place of occurrence was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. Muhammad Younis F.C. P.W.4 produced last worn clothes of the deceased, namely, Qameez P.1, Shalwar P.2 and Dopatta P.3 and other belongings P.4/1‑2 (Karay) Hasli P.5 and Battans P.6 before the Investigating Officer who took all these articles into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. The witness got prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence Exh.P.C. from Muhammad Rafique Patwari P.W.6 on 6‑5‑1982.

4. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf P.W.1 conducted post‑mortem examination on the dead body on 27‑4‑1982 at 4.00 p.m. He found the following injuries on the dead body:‑

(1) Contusion right temple region measuring 10 cm x 8 cm.

(2) Abrasion 10 cm x 10 cm right side of face and neck, both upper and low jaws were fractured.

(3) Abrasion 12 cm x 6 cm on right shoulder.

(4) Left Pinna was lacerated.

(5) Contusion 6 cm x 6 cm on left mastoid region.

(6) Contusion 8 cm x 8 cm left temple region.

Probable duration between the injuries and death was within few hours and between death and post‑mortem examination was 12 to 24 hours.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as 12 witnesses. The accused‑respondent while making a statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegations, levelled against him. He stated that eye‑witnesses are closely related inter se and are also related to the deceased, He stated that Saimal P.W. is the real brother of Dalpat, husband of Mst, Raheemi, deceased. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned trial Court discussed the entire evidence witness‑wise and came to the conclusion that he was unable to place reliance on them. He observed that the witnesses are interested and that he was not at all impressed by their depositions. The recovery of stick P.7 was also disbelieved. The learned trial Court took a special note of the fact that the witnesses were sufficiently aged persons and that they were not in a position to take the accused‑respondent to police station on foot which is at a distance of 8 miles from the place of occurrence. A conclusion drawn from the evidence was that the accused respondent was not arrested from the, spot and that the recovery of stick P.7 has been fabricated.

6. Sh. Khalil‑ur‑Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the only contention that the prosecution witnesses, namely, Suraj Mal P.W.7, Jumma P.W.8 and Saimal P.W.9 should have been believed because they are the independent and reliable witnesses. However, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is based on very solid reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out any legal flaws in the well‑considered judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. Admittedly, the State did not file any appeal against the acquittal of the accused‑respondent.

7. I have considered the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. I am not convinced by the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was enough evidence to pass an order of conviction against the respondent. The learned trial Court has considered the entire evidence on record. He has come to a definite conclusion about the innocence of the accused‑respondent. The recovery of the stick P.7 has been discarded. The eye‑witness account too was rightly repelled by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that the order of acquittal is perverse and is not at all based on solid reasons.

8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no substance in the revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.

S.G.D./S‑215/L Petition dismissed.