QURESHI VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS, MANGLA Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION, MIRPUR

This petition for special leave to appeal has assailed the impugned judgment, dated 17-1-1993 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bahawalnagar, whereby the respondents were acquitted in a private complaint instituted by the complainant/petitioner Muhammad Shaban under section 302/34, P.P.C.

2. The occurrence is stated to have taken place on the night between 24/25-7-1990 when the complainant alongwith his father Abdul Sattar deceased- was- sleeping in the lawn of his house as usual on two cots and there was no four-wall. On 25-7-1990 at about 4-00 a.m. Abdul Sattar woke up the complainant/petitioner and asked him to go for ploughing fields, and in the meanwhile Liaqat Ali P.W. came there. Abdul Sattar deceased was just to stand up from his cot and to go for easing himself when Muhammad Abbas respondent while armed with a gun .12 bore and Muhammad Iqbal respondent armed with a Sota appeared from his southern side and raised a Lalkara that they would teach him a lesson regarding the previous quarrel. Muhammad Abbas respondent/accused fired a shot at Abdul Sattar hitting his chest and abdomen. He fell down on the cot. The petitioner/complainant and Liaqat Ali P.W. tried to catch hold of them, but they threatened them with dire consequences. Noor Muhammad, brother of the complainant and Ghulam Muhammad, his uncle on hearing the fireshot also came there and on seeing them the respondents/accused fled away. The complainant thereafter proceeded to lodge F.I.R. Exh "A" at Police Station Minchinabad.

3. During investigation the respondents were declared innocent by the local police. Thereafter the complainant filed a private complaint against them, in which the respondents were summoned after recording preliminary evidence of five P.Ws. P.Ws.1 to 3 had furnished ocular testimony of the occurrence, whereas P.W.4 was the doctor and P.W.5 was the Investigating Officer. The learned trial Court after recording the statements of five P.Ws., recorded the statements of the respondents under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein the respondents denied the prosecution evidence against them, but had not opted to make statement on oath as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and also did not produce any evidence in defence.

4. P.Ws.1 to 3 who had stated the ocular account were closely inter related i.e. P.Ws.1 and 3 are brothers, whereas P.W.2 is their nephew. The deceased was father of P.Ws.1 and 3. It is in the evidence of P.W.3 that no other P.W. had reached the place of occurrence, and after the arrival of the Investigating Officer at the spot, the residents of the village had joined the investigation and except P.Ws.1 to 3 all the villagers had stated about the innocence of the respondents and had falsified the story of the prosecution. Then on the request of the complainant the investigation was transferred to Muhammad Khan, D.S.P., before whom only P.Ws.1 to 3 supported the case, whereas the whole village had stated otherwise. Again the investigation was transferred on the application of the complainant to Inspector/S.H.O. Ghulam Shabbir and before whom also P.Ws.1 to 3 supported the prosecution version and all residents of the village negated the same and had stated about the innocence of the respondents. The prosecution version was also disbelieved by the third I.O./Inspector of Police appointed on the request of the complainant.

4. It has been brought to the notice of the trial Court that Liaqat Ali P.W. had illicit relations with Mst. Gamon, daughter of one Muhammad Ameer, a neighbour of Abdul Sattar deceased. She was admittedly living away from her husband and Liaqat Ali P.W. used to meet her in the house of Abdul Sattar. Liaqat Ali P.W. always used to remain armed with a pistol during such activities. During the night of occurrence he came to the house of the deceased as usual to meet Mst. Gamon and while sitting on a cot near the cot of Abdul Sattar deceased, his pistol went off when he was loading the same and it hit the deceased. No empty was secured by the police from the spot and moreover no arm was recovered at the instance of respondent No.l. There was no evidence against the respondents and no prima facie case was made out justifying conviction of the respondents.

5. Pursuant to the above discussion, I am of the firm view that the respondents were rightly acquitted of the charge by the trial Court. Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in mind, no other view could be adopted to reverse the impugned judgment as there was no evidence at all against the respondents. The acquittal is based on reasons. The petition stands dismissed.

N.H.Q./M-1369/L Leave refused.