Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 652 of 1973, heard on 17th October 1973.

-----‑‑Ss. 325/149‑Principal accused conceding his water‑course dispute with complainant‑Complainant receiving no less than seventeen injuries--‑Prosecution witnesses disinterested and supporting prosecution version against all except accused M‑No satisfactory evidence of accused M having fired twice at complainant Material discrepancies between statement of witnesses in respect of part played by accused M and improvements also made in statements‑No pistol (crime weapon) recovered from such accused‑Conviction of M set aside---Case against rest of accused, held, established and satisfactorily proved, hence, their conviction maintained.

‑‑‑‑ Ss. 325/149‑Sentence‑First Information Report lodged on 7th August 1967 and trial concluding on 29th January 1973 Case remaining pending for nearly 6 years‑Sentences of accused reduced to terms of imprisonment already undergone and fine also reduced.

Major Waheedud Din Virk for Petitioners.

Irshad Ahmad, A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing : 17th October 1973.

Muhammad Ibrahim, Muhammad Sarwar, alias Bhudhu, Muhammad Aslam, Qasim, Haider and Muhammad Ranizan residents of Chah Jhalwala, Pakpattan, District Sahiwal, have been convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under section 325 read with 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code and to a fine of Rs. 500 each and in default of payment to‑further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment each. They have also been sentenced under section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code to one year's rigorous imprisonment each. Half of the tine, if realised, is ordered to be paid as compensation to Barkat Ali complainant (P. W. 1). The convicts appealed against their convictions and sentences. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, on 23rd July 1973, dismissed their appeal. Their revision petition is before me.

2. Muhammad Ibrahim petitioner wanted the Canal Authorities to sanction a water‑course through the land of Barkat Ali complainant, which was resisted by him. Their relations became strained. Muhammad Ibrahim petitioner filed a complaint against Barkat Ali P. W. before the Sub‑Divi sional Magistrate. Pakpattan, which was fixed for hearing for 7th August 1967. As the presiding officer was on leave, the case was adjourned. After attending the Court, Barkat Ali P. W. was returning home. When he reached near the Locoshed Mosque, the six petitioners attacked him. Muhammad Aslam petitioner was armed with a pistol, who fired two shots, but did not hit him. Qasim petitioner gave a Bang below on his head. Haider, petitioner was armed with a spike‑fitted laths (spear type). He aimed it at the abdomen of the complainant, who caught hold of the front portion (spike) of the stick, which came off. Thereafter the remaining accused, who were armed with dames, attacked him. The occurrence was witnessed by Ramzan (P. W. 2), Imam Ali (P. W. 4) and Siraj Din (P. W. 5). On seeing the witnesses, the petitioners ran away and while leaving, Haider petitioner took away the wrist watch of Barkat Ali P. W. which fell on the ground during the attack. Barkat Ali P. W. was taken to the hospital. Upon information Faizullah Shah, Sub‑Inspector (P. W. 7) reached there and recorded his statement Exh. P. A. A case was registered and the petitioners were later arrested.

3. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf, Medical Offcer, Incharge Civil Hospital, Pakpattan, (P. W. 6) medically examined Barkat Ali P. W. on 7th August 1967, and found seventeen injuries on his person, out of which two injuries were grievous and the rest were simple. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapons.

4. Muhammad Ibrahim petitioner admitted that he had made an application against Barkat Ali for a water‑course to the Canal Authorities and that he had also filed a complaint against Barkat Ali P. W. in the Court of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate. The petitioners denied the occurrence. Barkat Ali, Allah Ditta and Ramzan P. Ws. were recalled for cross‑examination. The petitioners, however, did not summon any witness in their defence.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the complainant has roped in many innocent persons, who are related to Muhammad Ibrahim petitioner with whom he had enmity on account of a dispute over a water course and that the eye‑witness account has been given by chance witnesses who were interested in the complainant. There is no doubt that some of the prosecution witnesses have tried to exaggregate the incident. Imam All 14 P. W. could not identify Muhammad Ibrahim and Qasim petitioners at the trial. On the day of occurrence, he had gone to the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to get a gun licence In his name. He came back without making an application because the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate was on leave that day. Under cross‑examination this witness admitted that the gun licence was issued in the name of his daughter and he was only a retainer. But he did not know, whether the licence was issued before or after the occurrence. It would not be safe to rely on the testimony of this witness.

6. Muhammad Ramzan P. W. is a tenant of Barkat Ali P. W. According to him, Muhammad Aslam petitioner struck Barkat Ali on the head with the butt end of his pistol. The other eye‑witnesses including Barkat Ali complainant have not supported this version of Muhammad Ramzan P.W. Muhammad Aslam petitioner is stated to have fired two pistol shots at the complainant, which did not hit him. Siraj Din P. W. has not seen Muhammad Aslam petitioner firing at Barkat Ali P. W. In his statement before the police, he had only mentioned to have heard the report of two shots, coming from the direction of the place of occurrence. As to the part played by Muhammad Aslam petitioner, there are material contradiction and improvements made by the witnesses. His case is, therefore, distin guishable from his co‑accused. No pistol has been recovered from him either. I, therefore, accept the revision petition on his behalf, set aside his convictions and sentences and acquit him.

7. Mohammad Ibrahim petitioner has conceded his water‑course dispute with the complainant. Barkat Ali complainant received no less than seventeen injuries at the time of the occurrence. Siraj Din P. W. was a contractor of the court's canteen. He is a disinterested witness. On the day of the occurrence, he was also coming from the Courts, when on the way he witnessed the occurrence. During his cross‑examination, an attempt was made to show that the witness was interested in the complai nant. But he denied any special business dealings with him. He did not even know if the complainant hailed from Amritsar. His evidence against the remaining five petitioners cannot be disbelieved. Similarly, Muhammad Ramzan P. W. who is a tenant of the complainant has no enmity with the petitioners. It may, however, be mentioned that at the time of the occurrence, he was not a tenant under the complainant, but he became his tenant later. His statement like that of Siraj Din P. W. cannot be disbelieved in so far as the remaining' five petitioners are concerned. Muhammad Ramzan and Siraj Din P. Ws. have supported Barkat Ali complainant, I have no reason to disbelieve their testimony so far as the remaining five petitioners are concerned.

8. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution case against the petitioners except Muhammad Aslam petitioner has been satisfactorily proved. I, therefore, maintain their convictions.

9. First information report in this case was made on 7th August 1967, and the trial concluded on 29th January 1973. The case remained pending for nearly six years. I, therefore, reduce the sentence of Muhammad Ibrahim, Muhammad Sarwar, Haider, Muhammad Ramzan and Qasim a petitioners to a period of imprisonment already undergone by them and their fine is also reduced to Rs. 250 each, in default of payment, they shall undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment each. If the fine is realised, it would be paid to the complainant as compensation.

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.