' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.-Shaukat Ali, complainant in the case F.I.R. . No,467/96 under section 302/34 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Basirpur, District Okara, impugns the judgment dated 7-4- 1999 through which the respondents Nos.2 to 5/accused were held not guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, Camp at Depalpur, by observing that "the prosecution version is not plausible and defence version is more plausible and appeals to reason which deserves to be believed in view of the case law cited". He further observed that, "This version shows that on the eventful day the deceased Ali Muhammad had initiated aggression against the accused, and injured them along-with his daughter Munawar Sultana P.W.5 and Kaniz Fatima P.W.6 and the accused Aslam had injured them in exercise of right of self-defence of his person and the persons of his father Khushi Muhammad who is an old man and lame from one leg and his brother Akram and in exercise of right of defence of their property and by causing death of Ali Muhammad he did not commit any offence".
2. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant contends that the motive has been proved in this case and the trial Court has Illegally relied on Khasra Girdawari (Exh.DA) in which Ali Muhammad was shown to be in possession of 5 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land (comprised of Khewat No,21) and accused Khushi Muhammad was to be shown in possession of 2 Kanals 13 Marlas of land. These entries in Khasra Gardawari were ultimately corrected by the Revenue Authorities under the order of District Collector, Okara dated 24-11-1997 Exh.DN on the application of accused Khushi Muhammad Exh.DJ which was much after the day of occurrence therefore the finding that the motive has not been proved is result of misreading of the evidence and the documents DN and DJ. Adds that the presence of the complainant Shaukat Ali, P.W.-4, and Zakir Hussain, P.W.-7 at the spot has not been accepted by the trial Court without any cogent reason; that the prosecution was able to prove the case through the ocular account furnished by the injured P.Ws., namely, Munawar Sultana and Kaniz Fatima, P.Ws.5 and 6, respectively; their statements were corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Abid Mehmood Qureshi, P.W.Ll, who proved the Medico-legal report of Mst.
Kaniz Fatima Exh.PQ whereby he had- found eight injuries on her person. He further examined Mst.
Munawar Sultana through M.L.R. Exh.PR and there were three injuries on her person. The postmortem examination on the dead-body of Ali Muhammad was conducted by Dr. Muhammad Sharif, P.W.-12, and Exh.PS/1 andrf Exh.PS/2 diagrams prove the case against the respondents. Adds that though all the weapons of offence which were recovered from the accused were not bloodstained and the complainant could not explain the injuries of the accused but the Court has wrongly given benefit of exercise of right of private defence to the respondents under section 100 of the, P.P.C. By misreading and non-reading of the evidence of the prosecution on the record. Finally, he states that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse and is not sustainable.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-accused states that Khushi Muhammad owned land measuring 5 Kanals and 7 Marlas in Killa No,4, square No,6 and was in possession of that land; deceased Ali Muhammad was in possession of 2 Kanals 13 Marlas of land; the accused never ploughed the land owned and possessed by Ali Muhammad, deceased; on the fateful day, Muhammad Akram accused was ploughing their land when all of a sudden Ali Muhammad, deceased, and his son Liaquat along with Munawar Sultana and Kaniz Fatima P.Ws., all armed with Sotas, attacked them and injured Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Aslam and Khushi Muhammad, respondents-accused; Khushi Muhammad is an old man and lame from one leg; the respondent-accused Muhammad Aslam in order to save his own life and the life of his brother Muhammad Akram and father Khushi Muhammad and in the defence of their property caused injuries to Ali Muhammad, Munawar Sultana and Kaniz Fatima with a Soti with which he was driving the bullocks; the right of exercise of private defence under section 100, P.P.C. Was available to the respondents; the motive has not been proved on the record and the recovery was not helpful to the prosecution; the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the presence of Shaukat Ali, complainant, and Zakir Hussain, P.W.-7, at the spot. Munawar Sultana and Kaniz Fatima have given the correct version of the case and through the well- reasoned judgment of the trial Court based on appreciation of evidence the respondents have been acquitted of the charge, which judgment needs no interference by this Court.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. To prove the case against the respondents, the prosecution has relied upon the motive, statement of the complainant namely Shaukat Ali, P.W. 4, and of Zakir Hussain, P.W.7. The injured eye-witnesses, namely Mst. Munawar Sultana and Mst. Kaneez Fatima appeared as P.W.4 and 5, respectively. The prosecution has also relied on the recoveries of weapon of offence and the medical evidence in the shape of reports of the injured P.Ws. Along with postmortem report of the deceased Exh.PQ, Exh.PR and Exh. PS. According toe the contents of F.I.R. Exh.PB, motive behind the occurrence is that IQiushi Muhammad, accused, was owner in possession of 4 Kanals of land in Killa No,4, square No,6, and remaining four Kanals of land of that Killa were owned by deceased Ali Muhammad under a private partition. On the day of occurrence, the accused party had ploughed over an area of 6 Kanals instead of four Kanals and for that reason the incident took place. This fact has not been proved during the trial. The revenue authorities under the orders of the District Collector, Okara dated 24-11-1997 on the application of accused Khushi Muhammad Exh.DJ had corrected the record and the deceased Ali Muhammad was shown to be in possession of 2 Kanals and 13 Marlas of land and Khushi Muhammad accused was shown to be in possession of 5 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land they had not operated plough in excess of their entitlement and had not encroached upon the land of Ali Muhammad deceased and the complainant party had no legal justification to launch assault on the accused party.
5. Presence of Shaukat Ali, complainant, son of deceased Ali Muhammad and Zakir Hussain at the scene is not supported by the evidence on the record. Ali Muhammad, father, Munawar Sultana, sister, and Mst Kaneez Fatima, mother of the complainant were injured and he was a silent spectator. He had not received any injury. The conduct of Shaukat Ali complainant is unnatural.
Had he been there at the spot, he would have physically intervened to rescue his father. Zakir Hussain, P.W.-7 is resident of village Taplani as is evident from the F.I.R., but in the Court he stated that he is resident of village Patipur, Tehsil Depalpur. He was confronted with his statement made under section 161 Cr.P.C. Exh.DD, wherein he did not state that he is resident of Patipur and has some land in Mauza Taplani. There is contradiction in the statement of Shaukat Ali and this witness over the ploughing of the area of land. He is resident of village Patipur, which is at a distance of 2-1/2 K.M. So the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the statement of said Zakir Hussain, P.W.-7, and cast doubt regarding his presence at the scene.
6. This brings us to discuss the ocular account of the injured P.Ws., namely, Munawar Sultana and Mst. Kaneez Fatima, P.Ws.-5 and 6, respectively, along with medical evidence. They both have not stated in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. That accused Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Aslam had given blows to them with the blunt side of their Kassi. Since all the injuries on the body of the deceased were shown to have been caused in the postmortem Report Exh.PS with blunt weapon, therefore, the witnesses have made improvements in their version in order to bring their evidence in line with the medical evidence. Even if they were present at the scene, they have not given the correct version of the incident, because the accused Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Akram sustained injuries. According to the doctor , who had examined said Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Aslam and Khushi Muhammad on 13-11-1996, found 4,6, and 4 injuries respectively on their persons. According to the doctor, duration of the injuries was within 48 to 72 hours and the weapon of offence was blunt. These injuries of the accused-respondents have been suppressed by these witnesses. The statement of the doctor Abid Mehmood Shah, P.W.-11 coupled with the statement of the accused made by them under section 342 Cr.P.C. Shows that the deceased Ali Muhammad, injured witnesses Mst. Munawar Sultana and Mst. Kaneez Fatima had injured Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Akram, accused-respondents. They had assaulted upon Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Aslam without any legal justification and injured them with Sotas. It was the first version of Khushi Muhammad that he was in possession of 5 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land from Killa No,4 square No,6 while the deceased was in possession of 2 Kanals and 13 Marlas of land and that his son Muhammad Akram was ploughing his land while Muhammad Aslam was helping him when deceased Ali Muhammad, Mst. Munawar Sultana and Mst. Kaneez Fatima attacked with Sotas and injured them. In the circumstances of the case, the accused-respondents had a right of their self- defence, which brings the case of the respondents within the parameters of section 100 of the P.P.C.
The respondents were not required to prove the plea of self-defence beyond reasonable doubt, and it was the duty of the Court to decide on the basis of the evidence on record the possibility of existence of the right of self-defence. In the case reported as Zohra and another y.. The State (1976 PCr.LJ 287) while interpreting the provisions of section 100, P.P.C. In a case registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. Wherein occurrence was not proved to have taken place in the manner alleged by prosecution and the accused having number of grievous injuries on heads, chests and other vital parts of their .Bodies, it was ruled that the accused enjoyed complete right of self-defence to the extent of causing death of assailants, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the accused was set aside by giving the right of private defence to the accused.
' In the case of Mashal Khan v. The State (PLD 1988 SC 25), the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that:- ' "When in a state of panic right of self-defence is being exercised, action on the part of the person cannot be measured in golden scales."
' In the case reported as Malik Waris Khan v. Ishtiaq alias Naga etc. PLD 1986 SC 335 it was held:- ' "Right of defending person having been recognized by keeping statutorily his right one step above that of person invading his right, such right, to extend to causing death inter alia where only grievous hurt be apprehended or of causing grievous hurt where only simple hurt be apprehended.
"
7. On the touchstone of the above stated section 100 P.P.C. And the case law, the learned trial Court has rightly concluded on the basis of evidence that the prosecution version is not plausible and the defence version is more plausible and appeals to reason and therefore by enjoying benefit of exercise of right of defence of their persons and property by causing the death of Ali Muhammad they did not commit any offence has acquitted them through a well-reasoned judgment, which needs no interference by this Court.
' Resultantly, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.