SABIR ZAMEER SIDDIQUE Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
Abdur Razzak (25/26), Muhammad Ashfaq (27/28) and their father Ghulam Rasool (56/57) appellants were tried by Magistrate Section 30, Gujranwala for an offence under section 307/34, P.P.C. and vide judgment, dated 6-5-1992 convicted, former two sentenced to 5 years' R.I. each and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each or in default thereof one year's R.I. each and the latter to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default six months' R.I. They have appealed.
2. The occurrence took place at 7-30 a.m. in Main Bazar near Railway Line at a distance of 2-1/2 furlongs from Police Station Kamoke, District Gujranwala on 1-4-1989. In the Chowk of the city Nazir Ahmad complainant (P.W.1) made statement (Exh.P.A.) to Manzoor Hussain, S.I. (P.W.8), the same day at 8-20 a.m. and on its basis the case was registered at 8-25 a.m.
3. According to the case in the F.I.R. Munir Ahmad injured (P.W.2), the brother of the complainant was assaulted by Razzak arid Ashfaq appellants armed with Chhuris on the Lalkara of Ghulam Rasool appellant and as many as three Chhuri blows were given by Razzak and one also by Ashfaq. The occurrence was witnessed by Nazir Ahmad (P.W.1) and Shehzad (P.W.3).
4. The motive alleged was the registration of two cases against the appellants about a year before the present occurrence.
5. Sabir Hussain, Dispenser (P.W.6) proved the medico-legal report (Exh.P.C.) according to which Munir Ahmad was having four sharp-edged injuries and all are penetrating, one was declared grievous and the other three simple. The medical examination was done soon after the occurrence. The eye witnesses account is furnished by Nazir Ahmad, Munir Ahmad and Shehzad P.Ws. Shehzad P.W. could not name Ashfaq appellant and felt content by pointing towards him to Court. Manzoor Hussain, S.I. (P.W.7) admitted that the appellant party were not satisfied with his investigation and that the Additional S.P. had found Ashfaq and Ghulam Rasool appellants to be innocent. Learned counsel for the appellants have also drawn the attention of the Court of the bail granting order by the High Court (D.B.) wherein statement was made by the police, that discharge report had been made which was not being forwarded by the Additional District Attorney. Abdur Razzak appellant admitted his participation in the occurrence and having injured Munir Ahmad but claimed self-defence. He, however, led no evidence in defence.
6. For the failure of Shehzad, the only independent witness to name Ashfaq and no active role having been attributed to Ghulam Rasool appellant A and the fact that the two were found innocent during investigation, the case against them does not seem to be proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. They are, therefore, granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted. Their appeal is accepted. Their conviction and sentences are hereby set aside. They be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.
7. The appeal on behalf of Abdur Razzaq appellant stands dismissed. The prayer made that he be granted the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is not granted in view of the grievous nature of the injury and the locale of the injuries. The fine imposed upon him if realised shall be paid to Munir Ahmad, injured P.W. as compensation.
8. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed in limine
N.H.Q./A-680/L Order accordingly