Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No 54 of 1986, decided on 19th November, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 324/34‑‑Right of self‑defence Acquittal challenged Both versions placed in juxtalibsition ‑‑Motive not proved against accused persons except against one‑‑No blood‑stained earth taken into possession to identify place of occurrence‑‑Investigation found dishonest‑‑Self‑defence pleaded during investigation‑‑Medico‑legal reports of injuries produced by accused but not placed on record by police‑‑Accused examined on same day by same doctor‑‑Injuries received on vital parts‑‑Injuries suppressed by prosecution‑‑Evidence appraised by Trial Court in accordance with .well‑established principles of appreciation of evidence‑‑Impugned judgment not causing any miscarriage of justice‑‑Defence version found reacting on prosecution story‑‑Complainant party held, was aggressor and accused acted in exercise of their right of self‑defence‑‑Merely because another view could be taken on basis of evidence on record would be no ground to interfere with order of acquittal in circumstances.

Muhammad Aziz Qureshi for Petitioner

Date of hearing: 30th April, 1986.

Arif, Maqbool, Yousuf and Muhammad Azam were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on charges under section 332/324 read with section 34, P.P.C. for having caused murder of Abid Hussain, deceased and have caused injuries to Zahid Iqbal and Jamshed Iqbal.

Vide judgment dated 12‑5‑1985, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Arif Maqbool and Yousuf of the aforesaid charges, as they were found to have acted in the exercise of the right of self‑defence.

Muhammad Azam, however, was found to have exceeded the right of self‑defence, by causing fatal injury by Abid Hussain, deceased and hence the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Muhammad Azam under section 304, P.P.C., and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for a terms of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default of the payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. It was also directed that the fine if recovered, shall be paid to the heirs of Abid Hussain, deceased as compensation under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. This revision petition has been filed to challenge the acquittal of all the respondents on the charge under section 302, P. P. C . It has also been prayed that respondent No.2 be convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and be sentenced to death. The enhancement of compensation under section 544‑A, Cr.P. C. has also been prayed.

2. I have heard the learned counsel at length and have also perused the record of this case. The occurrence according to the prosecution took place over the turn of water in which Zahid Iqbal and Arif exchanged abuses resulting into an altercation. Jamshed Iqal also arrived, who gave two or three slaps to Arif respondent. Arif after having being humiliated, threatened Jamshed and Zahid Iqbal with dire consequences. On 5‑6‑1983 at about 10.00 p.m. deceased Abid Hussain was proceeding to his Dera and when he reached near Chappar. He found Azam respondent armed with a dagger, Arif accused armed with a knife, Maqbool and Yousuf armed with Sotas, present pear the Chappar. On seeing Abid Hussain, Arif raised a Lalkara that Abid would not be allowed to go alive. Azam inflicted dagger blow to Abid Hussain deceased on the left side of his back. Abid Hussain raised hue and cry which attracted Zahid Iqbal and Jamshed Iqbal, to reach the scene of occurrence. Adid Hussain is alleged to have raised another Lalkara, for doing away Zahid and Jamshed, Arif inflicted a knife blow to Zahid Iqbal on his back, while Maqbool and Yousuf also inflicted blows to Zahid Iqbal with their Sotas. Arif also inflicted knife blow to Jamshed Iqbal. Yousuf and Maqbool also gave Sota blows to Jamshed Iqbal.

3. The case was initially registered under section 307/324 read with section 34, P. P. C . but on the death of Abid Hussain, the registration of the case was converted into one under section 302/324 read with section 34, P.P.C. On the person of the deceased only one stab wound was noticed, Jamshed Iqbal received two abrasions, one contusion and incised one injury caused with a sharp‑edged weapon. All these injuries were declared simple, Zahid Iqbal received three lacerated wounds, two contusion and one abrasion. All these injuries were simple in nature.

4. It may be stated here that all the accused were also found injured and these injuries were suppressed by the prosecution. These injuries were not mentioned in the F.I.R. Muhammad Azam had received five simple injuries out of which one was caused with a sharp‑edged weapon. Arif respondent had received eight simple injuries. Yousuf respondent had received two simple injuries out of which one was caused with a sharp‑edged weapon. Maqbool Ahmad respondent had received four injuries, all with blunt weapon and simple in nature.

5. The respondents when examined under section 342, Cr.P. C. denied the manner of occurrence as narrated by the prosecution. It was stated that one Abdul Hameed, the brother of Abid Hussain deceased was married to the daughter of one Barkat. Some time before the occurrence the donkey belonging to Barkat went astray which was caught by Arif respondent and his brother and they kept this donkey for two months. Barkat came to know of it and demanded the restoration of donkey and Rs,200 as compensation. The donkey was returned but the compensation was not paid. It was further stated that a joint wall between the houses of aforesaid Barkat and Arif was constructed by Arif and others and they asked Barkat to pay his share of the expenditure, but Barkat did not pay any money, but in lieu thereof a lamb was given. It was alleged that Zahid was desperate person, because several cases were registered against him and he was not happy over the situation. Abdul Hameed and Abid wanted to take back the lamb given by Barkat. It was stated that on account of this background on the day of occurrence, Abdul Hameed and Abid Hussain, deceased both real brothers like Zahid and Jamshed attacked them (respondent) in their house. Abid Hussain, deceased was armed with a knife, while the rest were armed with Lathis. Abid Hussain inflicted a knife blow on the person of Azam and Yousuf while the other assailants inflicted Lathi blows upon them. During this fight, it was alleged that in the exercise of right of self‑defence Azam picked up a knife from the kitchen, while the other respondents picked up Lathis lying in the Ihata and caused injuries to the complainant side. Azam gave a single blow to Abid Hussain, Zahid and Jamshed while others gave Lathi blows to Zahid and Jamshed. It was further stated, by the respondents that the complainant side was the aggressor. They also tendered in evidence, the various copies of the F . I . Rs . to establish the registration of case .against Jamshed Iqbal and Zahid Iqbal and others.

6. Keeping in view the defence version narrated above, in juxtaposition with the prosecution case, I am convinced, that it reacts upon the prosecution case. As far as the motive is concerned, the same has not been proved against the respondents other than Arif. Secondly the place of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution as sought to be established by it. No blood‑stained earth was taken into possession to identify the place of occurrence. The investigation in this case was not conducted honestly from the beginning. The respondents pleaded self‑defence. They had produced the medico‑legal report about their injuries, but the Investigating Officer did not attach the same with the record. The respondents were examined on the same day by the same doctor and they also received injuries on the vital parts of their bodies.

7. It is thus obvious, that the complainant side was aggressor and each of the respondents had acted in the exercise of the right of self‑defence. In this view of the matter, the judgment impugned cannot be interfered with. It is well‑established that merely because another view can be taken, on the basis of the evidence on the record, is no ground to interfere with the acquittal. The appraisal of the evidences in this case is in accord with the well‑established principles governing the appraisal of evidence. The judgment impugned has not caused any miscarriage of justice, nor can be considered to be perverse. Therefore.

I am not inclined to interfere. Consequently this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

S.A./M‑47/L Acquittal upheld.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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