ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus SALEH MUHAMMAD AND 7 OTHERS
The facts giving rise to this revision against acquittal are that Saleh Muhammad and 7 others, respondents, were tried under section 148/307/149, P.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate, Khushab on the allegations that in furtherance of their common intention they had launched murderous assault on Noor Muhammad, Mst. Nasiman, Haliman and Mst. Saliman P.Ws. The respondents/ accused denied the charge.
2. To prove its case, prosecution produced 11 witnesses. Mst. Nasiman P.W.1, Mst. Haliman P.W.2, Mst. Saliman P.W.3 and Noor Muhammad P.W.4 have supported the allegations of murderous assault on them by the respondents. Dr. Riaz Ali P.W.8 has proved the medico‑legal reports of the injuries of P.Ws. 1 to 4. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the respondents denied the incriminating circumstances. In defence they produced Dr. Asghar Nawaz D.W. to prove the medico‑legal reports pertaining to the injuries of Mst. Bhag Bhari, Mst. Amina Bibi and Muhammad Ramzan. Sardar Bakhsh A.S.I. D.W. and Munshi Fazal Elahi Patwari D.W.3 were also produced in defence. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the respondents under section 148, P.P.C. to 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 each and under section 307/149, P . P . C . to 4 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 each, in default whereof 6 months R.I. each. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed appeal, which was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab, who while accepting the same, acquitted the respondents on 10‑1‑1984, hence this revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the respondents; that the respondents were aggressor and that, in view of the observations made that the respondents had injured the prosecution witnesses in a free fight, the learned appellate Court could not have acquitted, rather should have convicted them for their individual acts. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the appellate Court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that there were cross‑cases between the parties; that 3 persons on the side of respondents received 9 injuries caused by sharp‑edged and blunt weapons. Out of the injuries suffered by respondents (accused party), one of the injuries found on Mst. Bhag Bhari was grievous; that the injuries suffered by the accused party were suppressed by the prosecution witnesses; that Mst. Nasiman P.W.1, Mst. Haliman P.W.2, Mst. Saliman P.W.3 and Noor Muhammad P.W.4, the eye‑witnesses of the present case were accused in the counter‑case; that in the counter case the accused (complainant party) of this case has been acquitted; that the respondents have not filed appeal against the acquittal of complainant party and that in para 13 of its judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed:‑--
"Although, the main bone of the contention between the parties is the land of Mst. Hurmat Bibi on which the parties are litigating in the Civil Court yet the immediate cause of this occurrence was the possession off Jhugi which is claimed by both the parties against each other. The copy of Khasra Girdawari and the judgments referred to above relate to the land of Mst. Hurmat Bibi and not to the disputed Jhugi for which there is no evidence to hold, that it is situate in that land. Sardar Bakhsh ASI D.W.1 categorically stated that the Jhugi was in possession of the accused party when he inspected the spot. I am, therefore, of the view that it appears from the circumstances of the case that the complainant party may be in possession of the land of Mst. Hurmat Bibi but the Jhugi in dispute Which may or may not be on that land was certainly in possession of the accused party which the complainant party also wanted to take possession of."
For what has been said above, it cannot be said that acquittal of the respondents was without legal or factual justification. It is well settled that once an accused person is acquitted of the charge then strong and exceptional grounds would be required for interference with the judgment of acquittal, which I do not see in the case in hand. The revision is, therefore, dismissed.
M.Y.H./A‑233/L Petition dismissed.