Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No.135 of 1986, decided on 11th November, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 265‑K & 439‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 307/34‑‑ Revision against acquittal‑‑Eye‑witnesses including complainant, not supporting prosecution Remaining eye‑witnesses given up by prosecution‑ ‑Recovery witnesses disbelieved by Trial Court‑‑ Complainant having moved application before Trial Court indicating compromise between parties‑‑Trial Court recording reasons for acquittal of accused under S. 265‑K, Cr.P.C.‑‑Judgment of Trial Court not found illegal or perverse‑‑Acquittal of accused upheld in circumstances.

Khizar Hayat Khan Punian for Petitioner.

This criminal revision arises from the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, whereby he on 1‑6‑1985, acquitted Talib Hussain and three others, respondents of the charge under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. The charge against the respondents was that they in furtherance of their common intention launched murderous assault upon Raja, Riaz Ahmad, Manzoor Ahmad and Noor Muhammad on 25‑10‑1984 and thereby caused the death of Raja and injuries to others.

2. To prove its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses including two eye‑witnesses namely, Mahmood Ahmad complainant P.W.10 and Noor Muhammad P.W.11. Noor Muhammad who is an injured witness had not supported the prosecution case. He stated that on receiving injuries which were inflicted from behind, he fell down unconscious and could not see the assailants. Mahmood Ahmad complainant supported the prosecution case in his examination‑in‑chief but when cross‑examined he stated that in fact he was not present on the spot and had not seen the occurrence. Khair Din P.W.7 however, supported the recovery of Sota P.3, hatchets P.4 to P.7 from Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Yousaf, Talib Hussain and Muhammad Riaz respondents. Dr. Riaz‑ud‑Din P. W.1 had conducted post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Raja deceased. The complainant moved application stating therein that since the parties had effected compromise, therefore, he does not want to produce the remaining evidence. On this the learned Deputy District Attorney gave up the remaining witnesses as unnecessary and closed the prosecution case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire ocular evidence was not recorded by the learned trial Court; that Dr. Javaid Aslam who had medically examined the witnesses was also not examined by the trial Court and that the accused /respondents have been acquitted in a hasty and unusual manner.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the two eye‑witnesses including the complainant have not supported the prosecution case; that the parties having arrived at compromise the Deputy District Attorney gave up the remaining eye‑witnesses; that the recovery witness has been disbelieved by the trial Court; that the complainant had also moved application before the trial Court indicating that the parties had compromised and that the trial Court has given reasons for acquitting the accused /respondents under section 265‑K Cr.P.C. The judgment of the trial Court does not appear to be illegal or perverse.

5. For what has been said above, there being no merits, the petition is dismissed in limine.

S. A. /R‑4/L 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.