MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus JAN MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS
ORDER
The revision petition is directed against the order, dated 30‑9‑1986 of Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted both the respondents under section 302/34, P.P.C. for having allegedly murdered Asghar Ali, brother of the petitioner. Learned trial Court while acquitting both the respondents under section 302/34, P.P.C., convicted respondent No. 2 under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years plus to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 in default whereof to suffer further R.I. for 3 months. Half of the fine, on realization, was directed to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
2. According to prosecution, Asghar Ali deceased and Jan Muhammad respondent had bangles shops adjacent to each other in the bazar. Jan Muhammad used to place to show cases in the street creating hindrance in the business of Asghar Ali. Asghar Ali and other residents of the Mohallah made applications to the Chairman of the Municipal Committee for illegal encroachment. Jan Muhammad respondent nursed grudge against Asghar Ali suspecting that the applications were made against him on the behest of Asghar Ali.
3. On the day of occurrence, Asghar Ali deceased went out in the bazar leaving the petitioner and P.Ws. Amir Ali and Muhammad Din in the shop. On seeing Asghar Ali standing in the bazar, Jan Muhammad after raising Lalkara that Asghar Ali shall be taught a lesson for making applications against him, took him into clasp while Muhammad Ilyas respondent gave a Sua blow on the right side of chest of Asghar Ali. When the P.Ws. went ahead to intervene, the accused fled away after threatening them with dire consequences.
4. At the trial, prosecution examined Muhammad Anwar petitioner (P.W.1), Amir Ali P.W.3 and Din Muhammad P.W.7 for ocular account.
Muhammad Anwar P.W.1 also deposed about the motive for the occurrence.
Evidence of recovery of Sua P.3 on the pointing out of Muhammad Ilyas respondent No. 2 was also led.
Muhammad Tauqeer Hayat, Inspector/S.H.O. and Mr. Abdullah Khalid, D . S . P . were examined as C . W .1 and C . W . 2 respectively on the request of the accused. Tauqeer Hayat Inspector verified the fact of having prepared the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. and Abdullah Khalid stated about having found Jan Muhammad innocent after investigation and of having issued direction that the name of Jan Muhammad be placed in column No. 2. He also stated that the investigation conducted by him was verified by Mian Abdul Ghafoor, Additional S.P.
5. Jan Muhammad during his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case as a whole and examined in defence Muhammad Hussain, Land Officer, Municipal Committee, Jaranwala as D.W.1. Muhammad Ilyas while denying the prosecution case and the recovery of Sua P.3 at his instance, stated as follows, in answer to the question, 'why this case against you and why the P.Ws. had deposed against you?':‑‑
"What actually happened at the time of occurrence was like this. During the absence of Asghar Ali deceased from the shop, his mother had a quarrel with the wife of Jan Muhammad in the matter of the sale of bangles. When Asghar Ali came there, his mother complained to him that she had been insulted by the wife of Jan Muhammad. Asghar Ali got flared up and caught hold of a Sua from his shop and tried to inflict injury on the wife of Jan Muhammad with that Sua. I caught hold of that Sua and during that scuffle, the Sua some how hit Asghar Ali in his chest but I cannot say as to how the Sua had hit him. The eye‑witnesses namely Anwar, Muhammad Din and Amir Ali were not present at that time. They had made false statement against me at the instance of Anwar complainant because they are on friendly terms with him. Even Anwar complainant was not present at the time of the occurrence. The Sua P.3 has been falsely planted on me."
6. Learned trial Court did not believe the evidence of motive nor the ocular account and so acquitted the respondents under section 302/34, P.P.C. However, Muhammad Ilyas respondent was found guilty by the trial Court under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. on the basis of his own version.
7. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. Motive for the occurrence, stated in the F.I.R. as well as at the trial, was that the accused suspected that the deceased had been making applications and complaints to the Municipal Committee against them.
The finding of the trial Court that the motive set up, stood disproved by the statement of D.W.1 (who had made statement on the basis of record), is based on correct appreciation of the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out any case to hold otherwise.
Amir Ali P.W.3 and Din Muhammad P.W.7 had no business to be in the shop of the deceased. They had not come there to make any purchases nor they had any programme to see anybody round about. It is not the case of the petitioner himself that he used to be always, present in the shop of the deceased. The shop belonged to the deceased alone. The conclusion arrived at by the trial Court that these witnesses were not present at the spot and they were chance‑witnesses, and the reasoning advanced for that, are based, on the material on record, and the same do not call for any interference.
Learned trial Judge while coming to the conclusion that statements of the eye‑witnesses did not seem to be true, also had taken note of the fact that Jan Muhammad respondent had not only been declared innocent by the two gazetted officers during the investigation but they had also placed his name in column No. 2 of the challan.
8. After having gone through the record and the impugned judgment, I am convinced that the view formed by the trial Judge vis‑a‑vis the prosecution case is correct and based upon correct appreciation of evidence. There is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed.
M.Y.H./M‑455/L Petition dismissed.