1. This is an application in revision against the order of acquittal recorded by Resident Magistrate, Kandiaro on 31October 1976, acquit--ting all the 4 respondents in the case.
2. On 20th December. 1974 at 6.15 p. m. F. I. R. Was lodged by Nawab Ali the present applicant against the respondents under sec--tion 324/504, P. P. C. Alleging that the dog of the complainant and the dog of Umer Din respondent fell out with each other and his son Roshan Ali cut out a stick from cotton cultivation to separate the two dogs upon which Umar .Din came running with a lathi and gave lathi blow to Rooshan Ali. Thereupon complainant went running and his son Khair Din also came and remonstrated with Umer Din upon which Sadruddin respondent came armed with hatchet and Roora and Ali Mohammad came armed with lathi. Unter Din gave lathi blows to the complainant, Roora and Ali Mohammad gave lathi blows to Rooshan Ali and thereafter Burkat and Mukhtar Malik came and rescued them, they also saw that Khairdin had hatchet injury in the head and Rooshan Alt had lathi injury on his head and other parts of his body. On the same day the other party had also lodged an F. I. R. Through Roora at the same police station 15 minutes after the F. I. R. In the present case which was registered in a non-cognizable cases Register but later on it was registered on 26th December 1974 under section 324, P. P. C where Roora had alleged that Roosttan Ali and Nawab Ali were cutting grass from their land while Umar Din was also cutting the grass and dog of Nawab Ali and Umar Din fell out and in trying to separate the dogs Umer Din and Rooshan Ali exchanged hot words with each other. Rooshan gave stick blows to Umer Din on his head whereupon Roora and his son Sadruddin who had hatchet and Mohammad Ali who had a lathi went running, Nawab Ali and his son Khair Din also came and quarrel ensued. Roora andst others gave the other side blows and Rooshan Ali also gave stick blows to Roora and Umer Din and then they were separated by other persons.
3. Both the cases were tried by the same resident Magistrate, Kandiaro and both cases ended in acquittal for all the accused involved.
4. Ch. Iftikhar had shown me that the prosecution's case in the F. I. R. Of Nawab Ali was proved by the 3 injured namely Rooshan Ali, Khair Din and Nawab Ali who were supported by Mukhtar Ahmad and Burkat. Rooshan Ali had one simple blunt weapon injury, Khairdin one hatchet injury which was declared as serious and he also had 4 blunt weapon injuries only one of which was serious. And lastly Nawab Ali complainant had 3 simple injuries by blunt substance. The contention of Ch. Iftikhar is that the evidence of P Ws have been rejected on irrelevant considerations and in spite of the fact that the incident was admitted and the injuries caused but the same had been completely ignored. I find that the criticism in respect of rejection of evidence is not justified as the learned Residence Magistrate has given reasons for disbelieving statements of the 3 injured. He found three contradictions in the state--ment of the complainant and, therefore, he was not considered as worth --believing. P. W. Rooshan Din was discarded as he was treated as an interested witness. The important injured witness P. W. Khair Din was not fully believed as his story appeared to contradict the entire prosecution story as stated in the F. I. R. He had stated that Sadruddin gave hatchet blow on his head and Roora and Mohammad Ali inflicted lath! Blows and Umer Din gave hatchet blow and that he had grappled with Sadruddin accused and that his brother Rooshan was there and his father reached there 10 minutes later. While the F. I. R. Had showed that the fight had initiated between Umar Din, and Rooshan and Khair Din had come later and F. I. R. Did not state as to who had caused hatchet injury upon the head of Khair Din. This P. W. Khairdin had stated that he had received 4 hatchet injuries but the statement was shown to be false as the doctor had found only one hatchet injury on Khair Din.
5. On these considerations the learned Magistrate was of the view that the 3 injured eye-witnesses lost the character of being reliable witnesses and their evidence could not be considered unless supported by independent evidence. He considered the evidence of P. W. Mukhtar and Burkat as independent evidence but he found that these witnesses were vague. Ch. Iftikhar has submitted before me that these two witnesses had involved Sadruddin clearly to have inflicted hatchet blow on the head of Khairdin. I found that this criticism is correct as these two P. Ws. Have clearly involved Sadruddin as the assailant upon Khairuddin, but when I looked at the statement of these witnesses I find that they have clearly stated that they found Umer Din accused bleeding from his head. It is therefore, clear that there has been a fight between the parties and since these two independent witnesses Burkat and Iftikhar do not provide any evidence as to who was the aggressor, therefore, it is difficult to come to a finding as to how the actual fighting started.
6. Admittedly. Umer Din accused was bleeding from his injury when his companion caused the injury upon Khairdin and since it was a sudden fight and 4 persons participated from each side, therefore, it would be difficult to measure the fight in golden scale particularly when the complainant side has not made statements which are free from considerations and exaggerations. The recoveries of blood-stained hatchet and blood-stained lathi have been discarded by the Resident Magistrate rightly so because there was no chemical report supporting the version of staining of those weapons by human blood. I do not find anything wrong with that approach. It is an admitted position that Roora and accused Umer Din have both received injury in the case.
7. After going through the judgment of acquittal I find that overall a correct view of the evidence has been taken by the learned Resident Magistrate and although he has not specifically taken into consideration the injuries found upon the injured P. Ws. But basically he had come to a correct decision in the circumstances of the case where parties had suddenly fought with each other over dogs fights and had caused injuries to each other. It was unfortunate that in this process of mutual fight more injuries, some of which were grievous, were caused to the side of the applicants. I, therefore, do not find that any purpose can be served by revising the acquittal order and sending the case back for re-trial. I may note here that both the counsel informed me that complainant Nawab Ali had died pending the consideration of this revision application. In these circumstances, this revision application is dismissed.
8. Revition declined.