Muhammad Sher (50) and Ali Ahmad (30) sons of Nawab Din, caste Jat, residents of Bucheki, were tried under section 307/34, P. P. C. By Mr. Saadat Ali Chaudhry, Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad, who by his judgment dated 31January. 1981, convicted them on the said charge and sentenced them to R. I. For seven years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each or in default to suffer further R. I. For six months each. The fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid as compensation to Muhammad Rafiq Shah injured P. W. The convicts have appealed.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution are that some time prior to the occurrence Muhammad Rafiq Shah complainant rented the shop of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 40 per month for running a hotel. Later on, both the appellants obtained Rs. 20,000 from him as loan out of which they returned only Rs. 4,000 but refused to pay the remaining amount despite repeated demands. Three or four months prior to the occurrence the complainant locked his hotel at Bucheki and shifted to Jaranwala where he started selling rice and loaves on a rehri. On 29April, 1977, Muhammad Sher appellant came to him at his rehri. The complainant demanded the amount from him upon which he told him that the amount will be settled soon.
On the night between 30th April and 1st May, 1977, Muhammad Rafiq Shah complainant was present in his house in Chamra Mandi, Jaranwala Town. At about mid night he came out on hearing a knock at the door and saw the appellants standing outside his house. Ali Ahmad appellants was holding a tin containing kerosene oil. On seeing the tin, the complainant called his sons Pasha Pervaiz P. W. And Javid (not produced). In the meantime, Ali Ahmad appellant threw the tin on him while Muhammad Sher appellant set fire to his clothes, as a result of which he sufferedst th burns all over his face, head, neck and abdomen etc. After the occurrence both the appellants ran away from the spot.
3. Muhammad Rafiq Shah was removed to Civil Hospital, Jaranwala, on the following day at 11 a.m.
Dr. Khurshid Ahmad examined him at 11-10 a.m. And found a specified burn all over the face, head, neck, upper limbs, chest, abdomen and right thigh. The injury was declared dangerous to life and was of 36 hours duration.
4. On the same day Mansab Ali, A. S. I. Reached Civil Hospital, Jaranwala, and recorded the statement of Muhammad Rafiq Shah com--plainant at 9-15 p.m. On the basis of which formal F. I.
R. Exh. P. A./1 was recorded at the police station at 9-30 p.m. The said A. S. I. Investigat--ed the case.
He arrested the appellants on 5th May, 1977. After the investigation they were challaned.
5. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. They contended that the complainant suffered injuries due to bursting of oil-stove and falsely implicated them due to enmity as they had forcibly ejected win from their shop. They examined two witnesses in their defence.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive alleged against the appellants and the evidence rather shows that the complainant party had a motive to falsely implicate them. He further submitted that inordinate delay in removing the victim to the hospital as also in reporting the matte to the Police is fatal to the prosecution.
7. The prosecution version of 'the motive is that Muhammad Rafiq injured P. W. Had advanced Rs.
20,000 to the appellants as loan, out of which they returned only Rs. 4,000 and refused to pay the remaining amount despite repeated demands. On 29th April, 1977, Muhammad Sher appellant went to the complainant when he was selling eatables on his rehri. The complainant asked him to pay the amount, upon which he told him that the account will be settled very soon. It is alleged that repeated demands of un-paid amount made by the complainant gave a cause of annoyance to the appellant. After going through the record, I am of the view that the above version is highly unconvincing. The complainant who was earning his livelihood by selling rice and loaves on a rehri, would not be in a position to advance a huge sum of Rs. 20,000 as loan. In cross-examination he stated that he advanced this amount without obtaining any writing from the appellants. It is unbelievable that he would advance that amount to the appellants without getting a receipt from them.
The case of the appellants is that they forcibly ejected the complainant from the shop which he had taken from them on rent and he falsely implicated them on that score. In the F. I. R. Even the complainant admitted that when he demanded the remaining amount from the appellants they refused to pay the same and put their own lock on his hotel which he was running in their shop. The material available on the record, thus, leads to the conclusion that the grievance, if any, was with the complainant party.
8. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at I a.m. On 1st May, 1977 (on the night between 30th April and 1st May, 1977). It was witnessed by Pasha Pervaiz P. W. And Javid (not produced) sons of the complainant. In cross-examination the complainant admitted that there are many inhabited houses around his house and all the residents of those houses had come to the spot and seen his person in flames. It is, however, extremely surprising that after. The occurrence the sons of the complainant or the neighbourers did not take him to the hospital. He was removed to the hospital on the next day at 11 a.m. It is still more surprising that the police station was at a distance of only one and a half furlongs from the spot but no body went there for lodging the report and it was on the next day at 9-15 p.m. That the A. S. I. Went to the hospital of his own and recorded the statement of the complainant. The culpable delay in removing the victim to the hospital and complete absence of any effort on the part of the victim and his sons to report the matter to the police is against the ordinary course of human conduct. Such a conduct could be expected only either from a person who had attempted to commit suicide and wanted to conceal it or from a person who wanted to gain time for deliberation to falsely implicate his enemies by utilizing an accidental mishap to himself.
It is also important to note that medical evidence does not support the statement of the eye- witnesses regarding the time of occurrence. The complainant stated that the occurrence took place at mid-night and his son stated that it took place at 1 a.m. (on the night between 30th April and 1st May, 1977). The complainant was medically examined on Ist May, 1977 at 11-10 a.m. And, according to the doctor, the duration of injuries was 36 hours. This would bring the time of occurrence round about mid night of 29th/30th April, 1977.
9. For the foregoing reasons I allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants and acquit them of the charge. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.