BASHIR AHMAD Versus THE STATE
Muhammad Siddique, brother of the complainant, Bashir Ahmad P.W.7, was murdered on 20-10-1983 at 4/5 p.m. in Chak No.477/EB Faiz Muhammad and five -others were charge-sheeted and tried for the offence under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari, who vide judgment, dated 14-2-1985 acquitted all of them. Bashir Ahmad P.W.7 lodged F.I.R. Exh.P.G. at Police Station Sadar Burewala.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that the complainant had gone to Sialkot 10/12 days before the occurrence. He came back on 20-10-1983 and reached the bus-stand of railway crossing in Chak No.537/EB. He and his brother, Ahmad Din, sat on the front seat of the Tonga whereas two passengers, Muhammad Ashraf and Noor Muhammad, sat on the back seat. The driver of this Tonga was his brother Muhammad Siddique when it reached within the limits of Chak No.477/EB in the area owned by Fateh Ali Ghuman, Faiz Muhammad, Muhammad Aslam armed with spears, Munawar and Muhammad Ashraf armed with Sotas and Muhammad Afzal and Abdullah armed with Lathis emerged on the scene of occurrence. Muhammad Ashraf stopped the Tonga while Abdullah raised a Lalkara and exhorted the other co accused that Muhammad Siddique be killed to avenge the insult of Muhammad Aslam. Faiz Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam caused Barchhi blows to Muhammad Siddique which Munawwar and Muhammad Afzal etc. inflicted injuries to Muhammad Siddique with their respective weapons, who died on the spot. The motive alleged was that about 5/6 days before the occurrence the accused and Muhammad Siddique deceased had quarrelled with each other and Muhammad Siddique was killed to avenge the aforesaid insult.
3. Khan Muhammad, A.S.I. (P.W.9) investigated the case. He reached the spot, prepared inquest report Exh.P.H. and Injury statement Exh.P.J. He sent the dead body for the post-mortem examination. He took into possession Tonga P.1 vide memo. Exh.P.B. and blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.C. He also prepared the site plan Exh.PA. and got prepared its copies Exh.P.1/12 by Muhammad Iqbal Patwari P.W.1. He recovered the blood-stained spear P.2 from residential house of Muhammad Aslam accused vide memo. Exh.P.D. The accused were arrested by him on 20-10-1983. He recorded the statement of various witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. After investigation, he' `challaned Faiz Muhammad and placed the names of all other co-accused in
Column No.2 of the challan. All of them were sent to face trial in the aforementioned offence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that Bashir Ahmad and Noor Muhammad were the natural witnesses of the case. Their statements found corroborative from the medical evidence as well as the recovery of spear. Learned counsel for the respondents maintained that the eye-witnesses in the case were chance witnesses; that the ocular version has been contradicted by the medical evidence and that the independent witnesses were not produced by the prosecution in this case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. .
6. I think that there is no case for interference in revision against the judgment of acquittal. Admittedly, Muhammad Sharif and Noor Muhammad also witnessed the occurrence lout they have not been produced by the prosecution. Inference is unavoidable that had they been produced, they would not have supported the prosecution version. The ocular evidence is in direct conflict with the medical evidence. Bashir Ahmad (P.W.7) and Noor Muhammad (P.W.8) deposed before the Court that Muhammad Siddique was sitting in the Tonga when Muhammad Aslam inflicted spear blows. However. Dr. Syed Shamshad Hussain stated in the Court that that injury could be caused by the assailant if the injured person was standing on the level lower than the assailant. As such the presence of the eye-witnesses was not free from doubt. The motive part of the story has not been proved in the Court. It is well -settled that if a motive is set up by the prosecution, it must be proved by it: So far as the evidence of recovery is concerned, no respectable of the locality was associated with the Investigating Officer. The judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge cannot be termed as whimsical and it cannot be substituted in revision even if a different view is possible.
Pursuant to the above discussion, I find no force in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.
N.H.Q./B-150/L Revision petition dismissed.