Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 55/11 of 1985, decided on 25th January, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 22‑4‑1985 in Criminal Revision No.23 of 1985).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/34‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑Both Courts after having minutely examined prosecution evidence coming to conclusion that there were material contradictions to indicate that eye‑witnesses were not present on spot at time of occurrence‑‑Petition, held, was devoid of force, dismissed in circumstances.

Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Mian Inamul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

Date of hearing: 25th January, 1986.

‑Learned counsel's contention is that all the witnesses including the injured complainant has supported the prosecution case and established the guilt of the accused/ respondent; that there is evidence of motive and medical evidence which fully corroborate the ocular account in this case; that recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Khunda from Sher Ali accused /respondent and Soti from Ataullah and the evidence on the recovery is from independent and unimpeachable sources. It was further contended that Dr. Muhammad Khan who medically examined Rehmat Din and Hayat Muhammad injured P.W. found two and four injuries on their person, respectively which fact corroborated the prosecution case materially; that the said Doctor took X‑Ray film of Hayat Muhammad on 24‑7‑1983 and declared injury No.1 to be grievous in nature as there was fracture of right clavicle bone; and post‑mortem report of Rehmat Din clearly shows that his death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injury No.2 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

2. Facts material for the decision on this petition are that the deceased Rehmat Din, alongwith Hayat Muhammad complainant, was returning to the village at about 12‑30 p.m. when near the Haveli of Lambardar of the village Muhammad Khan, Sultan Khan, Sher Ali and Ataullah came armed with different weapons i.e., Sher Ali was armed with Khunda while the others had Sotas. Sher Ali gave a Khunda blow to Hayat Muhammad P.W. on his shoulder who fell to the ground and then Sultan Khan accused /respondent gave three Sota blows to Hayat Muhammad. Ataullah dealt a Sots blow to Rehmat Din on his right temporal region, and Muhammad Khan gave a Sots blow on the left side of his head. On hearing alarm Nawab came to the spot and rescued them. Meanwhile Khaki Jan and Muhammad Ramzan also reached there and they attacked the accused/ respondents with Lathis.

3. Both the Courts below have minutely examined the prosecution evidence and came to the conclusion that there are material contradictions significant to indicate that the eye‑witnesses were not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. The learned High Court Judge observed in the impugned judgment:‑

"It transpires from the considered analysis of the evidence led at the trial that the only independent eye‑witness who finds mention in the F.I.R. namely Subedar Abdul Baqi has not been produced. All other witnesses who testified at the trial to furnish the ocular account of the prosecution version are closely related inter se and are also relatives of the deceased."

The learned Judge also observed that:

"The complainant party‑ suffered 12 injuries including injuries on the person of the deceased caused by blunt weapon. These injuries of course, included grievous injuries as well. The accused party, on the other hand, suffered 15 injuries simple as well as grievous at the hand of the complainant party including one caused by a sharp‑edged weapon like hatchet. These injuries have not been explained by the P.Ws."

In view of above, we do not find any force in this petition which is, consequently, dismissed.

M . I . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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