MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus THE STATE

Muhammad Hanif, petitioner, and his father Sohawa were tried under section 325, P.P.C. for causing injuries including grievous injuries to Nizam Din P.W. The allegations were that the father of the petitioner caught hold of Nizam Din and the petitioner inflicted Soti blows and one of his teeth was broken. Nizam Din supported the prosecution version. Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Saleem supported him. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf P.W.5 medically examined him. He found that one of the teeth of Nizam Din was broken.

2. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all incriminating circumstances. He raised plea of false implication. He produced Dr. Bashir Ahmad D.W.1 and Saeed Ahmad D.W.2. Dr. Bashir Ahmad stated that Nizam Din had obtained false certificate with regard to the injuries on his teeth. Saeed Ahmad D.W.2 stated that there was no fight between the parties, although there was a quarrel between them.

3. The trial Court on 3-5-1982 convicted the petitioner under section 325, P.P.C. and sentenced him to six months S.I. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, on 9-9-1985.

4. No one has appeared for the petitioner. Since the revision, after having been admitted, cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution. So I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.

5. I find that Nizam Din was not examined by the Dentist and, as such, it cannot be said with certainty that the tooth was broken and it did not come out naturally. The eye-witnesses had also involved the father of the petitioner, who was acquitted by the trial Court. This will show that the eye-witnesses have no sanctity for the truth and they did not spare the father of the petitioner. In the circumstances of this case it runs counter to the natural probabilities that the petitioner would have brought his father to the spot simply to catch hold the victim in order to enable him to inflict the injuries which he otherwise could inflict, without the abetment of his father.

6. For what has been said above, while giving him the benefit of doubt, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of his bail bond.

S.A./M-2860/L Revision accepted.