The prisoner Tai Din alias Taja, a young-man of 24, was tried along with another person, Bashir aged 20, for the murder of an old man of 70/72 years. The learned trial Court, however, convicted Taja accused under section 304, Part I, P. P. C. And sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 while convicting the co-accused under section 324, P. P. C. And sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. Convict Bashir has not appealed. Taja prisoner has sent in this appeal from Jail.
2. The prosecution case is that a day before the murder the two accused had fallen out with P. W.
Bakhtawar, the son of the deceased and exchanged abuses. The next day in the afternoon the prisoner and the co-accused went to the fields where the deceased and his son Bakhtawar P. W.
Were grazing their sheep. The two accused were armed with knives. They attacked the deceased.
The prisoner stabbed the deceased in the abdomen while the co-accused caused an injury on one of the shoulders of to, deceased. Consequently the deceased expired on the spot.
3. The defence version is that no incident occurred the day before. It was only on the fateful day that the deceased and his son Bakhtawar P. W. Objected to the prisoner's grazing his cattle in the vicinity of their fields. The co-accused was not present at the scene. When the prisoner refused to take away his cattle the deceased and his son attacked him and not only beat him but the deceased also tried to strangulate him by putting a piece of cloth around his neck. Thereupon, apprehending death, the prisoner took out his knife and stabbed the deceased which resulted in the latter's death. However, no evidence was adduced in defence except a copy of a Khasragirdawri.
4 The incident in question having been partly admitted it is not necessary in this case to refer to the circumstantial evidence. As to the direct evidence the prosecution examined only two witnesses, namely, Bakhtawar, the son of the deceased, and Muhammad Akbar P W.
5. The learned trial Court disbelieved the motive put forward by the prosecution and the story of the incident that had allegedly taken place a day before the fateful day. The prosecution case has thus been partly rejected. In a case like this the Court has to put the two versions in juxtaposition with each other and see in the light of the evidence on record as to which one is more plausible.
The knife recovered at the' instance of Taja prisoner as a weapon of offence has a blade only 3 inches long. It is unbelievable that any one would go to attack his adversary, with the intention of murder, armed with nothing better than a knife with a 3-inch blade. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly held that there was no premeditation on the part of the accused. The incident in question occurred at the spur of the moment. This clearly shows that a complete reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of the eye--witnesses. So we are left with the defence version which in the circumstances of the case does not appear to be implausible. If the accused had a motive to attack any one, going by the prosecution version, it was Bakhtawar P. W. And not the deceased who was an old man of 70. The prisoner would not have attacked the deceased unless the latter had left him with no choice. It is also improbable that the accused should have left Bakhtawar P. W.
Unhurt. In view of this circumstance also the defence version seems to be more probable than the prosecution one. I am, therefore, of the opinion that a more justifiable conclusion would be that the prisoner acted in self-defence and in view of the apprehension of imminent death his right of private self-defence extended to the causing of death. Accordingly, I accept this jail appeal, set aside the prisoner's conviction and sentence and acquit him.