STATE Versus BOSTAN KHAN

ORDER

1. This appeal by the Government against the judgment dated 7‑4‑1981 delivered by the District Criminal Court (Poonch) Rawalakote was prelimi narily heard by me. By this judgment the respondents were acquitted by the trial Court. By this very judgment the principal offender was convicted and sentenced thereof. The appeal of the convict is separately pending before this Court.

2. After going through the judgment I feel that though the trial Court ha not properly appreciated the evidence led against the respondents which had given rise to this appeal yet I am not inclined to admit this appeal for regular hearing. The case against them may not be free from doubt.

3. The marriage ceremony was being performed at the house of Muhammad Shafi P. W. the bridegroom. The participants were in a large number attend ing the marriage ceremony which was being performed at night on 12‑7‑1979 at about 11 o'clock when a grenade was thrown inside the room where the people were assembled round the bride.

4. According to the prosecution, Naib‑Subedar Abdur Razzaq was sitting outside the courtyard just facing the house and Muhammad Aslam was standing in the other door of the same room where the ceremony was going on. During the performance of the ceremony, Nasir Ahmad convict all of a sudden accompanied by the respondents appeared in the court‑yard calling out the people assembled inside not to move and threw a grenade on them which exploded as a result of which Aftab Ahmad son of Muhammad Azam Khan P. W. was killed and so many others were injured. After doing so, it is said, they ran away and while fleeing Nasir Ahmad had a turn in order to throw another grenade but was stopped by Munshi Khan respondent that the second one was not needed to be thrown as the enemies were already done to death. Again on their way while taking to heels, it is alleged that they were also seen by Muhammad Azam Khan P. W. who was coming to the house of Muhammad Shafi on hearing the report of the grenade. Hassan Muhammad and Nasim Akbtar P. Ws. were also injured.

5. In the first information report Exh. P. A. the `lalkara' was attributed to Nasir Ahmad alone but before the Court it was attributed to the respondents as well. Ma. Nasim Akhtar is a child girl. Before the police, she was made to state that she was told by her father Muhammad Azam and uncle Abdur Razzaq that Nasir Ahmad all along with the respondents threw the grenade killing Aftab Ahmad and injuring others but before the Court she was made to state that she heard Nasir Ahmad, herself shouting at the assembly within the house and thence throwing grenade on them. What was recorded by the police about the means of her knowledge that was refuted by her and made such a statement before the Court which is not believable in the circumstances which existed on the spot at the time of occurrence. Abdul Khaliq P. Ws. statement is void of the name of Abdul Hussain respondent.

6. The act of about to throw another grenade was not disclosed in the first information report as was deposed to by the report maker before the Court and so statement of Muhammad Azarn in respect of witnessing the respondents while fleeing becomes doubtful because it was he who deputed Abdur Razzaq to lodge a report of the incident but his witnessing of the respondents was not disclosed to him. Hassan Muhammad P. W. attributes lalkara to all the respondents and the convict as well. But the report maker and Muhammad Shafi P. W. attributes this `lalkara' to Nasir Ahmad convict alone. The manner in which the second grenade was stopped from being thrown by Nasir Ahmad convict is not unanimous among the witnesses as the utterance made by Munshi Khan respondent in stopping throw of the second grenade differs maternally in expression from the mouth of each witness. One of the respondents is the father of Nasir Ahmad convict, second one is his uncle and the third one is his father‑in‑law. It does not appeal to mind that father, father‑in‑law and uncle all could have accompanied the victim for commission of a crime in the manner as alleged against the respondents.

7. That being so, in my view for the case being doubtful against the respondents, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

8. Appeal dismissed.