MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE

ORDER

Muhammad Akram, respondent, was tried for the murder of Farman Ali by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. By his judgment dated 21‑5‑1987, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Muhammad Akram, respondent, under section 304, Part 1 of the P.P.C. and sentenced him to R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default to suffer R.I. for one year. Muhammad Akram, respondent, was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased under section 544‑A of the Cr.P.C. and in default to suffer R.I. for six months.

2. By this petition under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., Ahmad Ali, complainant, a brother of Farman Ali deceased, seeks the revision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge's judgment praying that the respondent, Muhammad Akram, should be convicted under section 302 of the P.P.C. and sentenced accordingly.

3. The incident resulting in the death of Farman Ali did not occur in the background of a previous enmity. The parties belonged to the same place in Chak No. 105/R.B. On 2‑4‑1986 at Maghrabwela Muhammad Akram, respondent, was passing by the Dhari of the complainant, when the complainant's pet dog chased him. The respondent, Muhammad Akram, gave a Danda blow to the dog. Farman Ali deceased protested; this led to an altercation and exchange of abuses and the respondent, Muhammad Akram, gave a Danda blow also on the head of Farman Ali. Iftikhar P.W., who lived in a nearby Dhari, separated them. It was the prosecution case that at Maghrabwela on 3‑4‑1986, Farman Ali deceased went to the Dhari of Iftikhar P.W. for tilling the Cheelam of Huqqa when Muhammad Akram, respondent, appeared on the scene, raised a Lalkara and dealt a knife blow in the abdomen of Farman Ali. Farman Ali fell unconscious.

4. Farman Ali was removed to the hospital and was medically examined and admitted. Ahmad Ali, petitioner, obtained his medico‑legal report at 7‑00 a.m. On 5‑4‑1986 but did not report the incident to the police till 9‑10 p.m. On the same day Farman Ali died on 6‑4‑1986.

5. The post‑mortem examination report of the dead body of Farman Ali showed that he had two injuries, one an incised wound in the abdomen, which proved fatal and the other a swelling 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the right side of head. The latter was probably the injury which Farman Ali had received at the hand of Muhammad Akram, respondent, on 2‑4‑1986.

6. The respondent's case was that the occurrence took place on the Kacha path near the Dera of Iftikhar P.W. He was passing by the Dera when Farman Ali deceased, attacked him and caused him injuries. He caused him only one injury in self‑defence.

7. Muhammad Akram, respondent, was Y medically examined by Dr. Riaz Ali (C.W.1) on 4‑4‑1986. According to Dr. Riaz Ali, he had noticed eight injuries can his person, they were on his arms, legs and shoulder. They had been caused with blunt weapon; one of them, namely, an abrasion on the right arm was kept under observation. Later, all were declared simple.

8. Thus, there were two versions of the incident. The prosecution case mainly rested upon the testimony of Ahmad Ali (P.W.4) and Iftikhar Ali, who claimed to have eye‑witnessed the incident and who also gave evidence as to the alleged motive.

9. The learned trial Court found that as in the earlier incident, it was the respondent who had caused injuries to Farman Ali deceased, the motive lay with the latter. The learned trial Judge was also of the view that the incident had not occurred in the manner deposed to by Ahmad Ali and Iftikhar Ali P.Ws. that the prosecution had fabricated the venue of occurrence, made improvements in the occurrence and manner thereof and deliberately suppressed the injuries on the person of accused, with a view to magnify the role of accused and term it, as a pre‑concerted attack'. In other words, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution version that accused launched a premeditated and calculated attack. has not been established."

10. The view taken by the learned trial Court was a possible view of the evidence led at the trial and even if it can be shown that a different view of the evidence could be taken, that will not justify interference. According to the prosecution itself, it was the respondent who had caused injury on the head of Farman Ali deceased; in the incident, the respondent Muhammad Akram, had also caused a Danda blow on his back. There was then the significant fact that, there were injuries on the person of Muhammad Akram, respondent, but Ahmad Ali and Iftikhar P.Ws. denied that he had received injuries during the course of the incident. Thus, instead of explaining those injuries, the P.Ws. were content with denying them. The respondent, Muhammad Akram, caused only one knife blow to the deceased and in the proved facts of the case, the learned trial Court was within his right to reach the conclusion that he did, namely, that he had caused that injury to the deceased in the exercise of his right of self‑defence. The revision petition is dismissed.

SA./A‑526/L Petition dismissed.