Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11-Q of 1985, decided on 9th March, 1985.

---S. 561-A--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/326/325/324/141/149- Quashing of judgment--Private complaint dismissed by trial Court- Revision filed by complainant also dismissed by revisional Court--Two Courts below finding number of glaring discrepancies in ocular evidence--Considering improbabilities and contradictions in statements of witnesses Courts below holding case of complainant to be false- Complainant party in over-eagerness to set up persons as independent witnesses introducing two false witnesses and destroying its case--Orders of both Courts below not found to be suffering from any legal defect- Quashment declined in circumstances.

Ashiq Hussain Rizvi for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. by Muhammad Zaman, petitioner, for quashment of the judgment of a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Gujrat, dated 4-11-1984, dismissing his revision petition. Earlier, a Section 30 Magistrate of Mandi Bahauddin, by his order, dated 20-11-1983, had dismissed the petitioner's private complaint filed against Salehoon and twelve others under section 307/326/325/324/ 148/149, P.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an occurrence took place on 7-6-1982 at Digerwela in which six persons on the side of the present complainant party and six persons on the side of the present accused party (of which one died) were injured. On the F.I.R. of one Salehoon, a case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. was registered against the members of the present complainant party. On 5-8-1982, Muhammad Zaman, the present petitioner, filed a private complaint against Salehoon and twelve others, the members of the present accused party under section 307/326/325/324/148/149, P.P.C. Since the earlier police case was sent up for trial before the Sessions, the Magistrate sent the private complaint case of Muhammad Zaman, petitioner, to the Sessions, who sent the same back to a Section 30 Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law. The Magistrate, after recording preliminary evidence, dismissed the complaint, vide his order, dated 20-11-1983. The petitioner then filed a revision petition against the said order, which was dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge of Gujrat by his order, dated 4-11-1984.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Both the lower Courts found a number of glaring discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, on the basis of which they held the case of the complainant to be false. Ghulam Qadir P.W.O, Muhammad Ashraf P.W.9 and Hidayat P.W. 10 stated that they had snatched the weapons of offence from the hands of the accused and with the same inflicted injuries on the members of the accused party. Both the lower Courts found that it was rather surprising that none of these witnesses had received injuries at the hands of the twelve members of the accused party, or assuming they had injured the accused, why they were not named as accused in the earlier F.I. R. lodged by Salehoon or why the police had not arrested them as accused in the said case. There are other contradictions in the versions given by the witnesses regarding other matters, which are also referred to in the orders of the lower Courts. It appears that the complainant party, in their over eagerness to set up persons as independent witnesses, introduced Ghulam Qadir, p.W.8, Muhammad Ashraf P.W.9 and Hidayat P.W.10 and thus destroyed their case, which otherwise perhaps may have been true. In these circumstances, the orders of both the lower Courts do not suffer from any legal defect. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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