SARDAR KHAN Versus SHAUKAT ALI
ORDER
Facts leading to the filing of this revision are that complainant had got a case registered against respondent Shaukat Ali and another for offences under sections 307, 326/34, P.P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Section 30 Chunian vide his judgment, dated 7-6-1989 acquitted Muhammad Ramzan by giving him benefit of doubt. Respondent Shaukat Ali was found guilty and convicted under section 325, P.P.C. and sentenced to three years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default six months' R.I. Convict Shaukat Ali appealed against his conviction and sentence. Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur vide his judgment, dated 24-2-1990 accepted the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. In the present revision complainant challenges the judgment of appellate Court.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that case against the respondent was proved beyond doubt. Submitted that the learned trial Court without assigning any reason extended the benefit of doubt which was not possible. Submitted that the eye-witnesses included an injured P.W. as well. Injured P.W. Sardar Khan was corroborated by medical evidence furnished by Doctor Javaid Hayat Balooch, P.W.1. Argued that in these circumstances acquittal of the respondent was against law.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence as well as judgment impugned. The learned appellate Court while giving benefit of doubt relied upon the fact that both the eye-witnesses namely Sardar Khan and Lal Khan P.Ws.2 and 3 respectively were real brothers. There was enmity between the parties inter se. The appellate Court further observed that medical evidence did not furnish any corroboration to the ocular account. On the other hand it contradicted the eye-witnesses. The doctor in cross-examination admitted that the possibility of the witness having received an injury by fall from tree could not be ruled out.
The respondent in his statement without oath refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence and produced two witnesses in his defence. Muhammad Buta D.W.1 stated that he was present on the day of incident when Sardar Khan witness came and started cutting branches of a tree. He fell from the tree and got injured. Similarly Muhammad Sharif D.W.2 stated to the same effect. Both the witnesses were cross-examined but nothing was brought on the file which could indicate that they were not telling the truth. The defence version if put in juxtaposition with prosecution allegations, defence version is more plausible because it finds corroboration from medical evidence. After having gone through the judgments of both the Courts below I find cogent reasons have been given by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur for extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent. The judgment impugned does not suffer from any misreading of evidence or lack of jurisdiction. No ground for interference in the orders impugned is made out. Petition fails which is dismissed.
N.H.Q./S-216/L Revision dismissed.