1. Appellant above named, being aggrieved by judgment, dated 3rd July, 1977 of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Sessions Case No. 57/76, by which appellant has been convicted under sections 307 and 326, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo R.I. For 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.
2. 3,000 or in default to undergo further R. I. For one year under each account and convicted under section 304, P. P. C. And sentenced to suffer R. I. For one year, all the sentences to run concurrently and in addition the appellant has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000 under section 544-A, Cr. P. C. To the injured or in default to suffer further R. I. For 6 months, has preferred the above appeal, on the following facts and grounds :- The prosecution story briefly stated. Is that, about 21 years back, on 2nd October, 1974 one Allah Bux, complainant in this case had gone to Ganga Dhandh (Lake) for taking bath, as he was an aczema patient. P. W. Taj Muhammad his brother also accompanied him on the way to Ganga Dhandh (lake), but stayed away and sat at the otaq of Haji Yousuf during the course of taking bath by his brother. Allah Bux after having taken his bath put on his shalwar only, when the present appellant emerged from nearby, duly armed with hatchet and started giving death threats to him. The appellant then attacked and inflicted a hatchet blow, which struck him injuring his hand, stomach and leg, respectively, as a result of failure in warding off the blow with his hand. His thumb was cut from the hand and fell on the ground. On the cries of Allah Bux, P. W. Vikio Ghumrani and P. W. Taj Muhammad rushed towards the scene and witnessed appellant inflicting hatchet blows to the complainant: In the meanwhile, complainant gave appellant lathi blows, which he picked up from near by his clothes for his defence. The second blow of hatchet of appellant struck the head and the shoulder of the complainant. The above P. Ws. On reaching at the wardat intervened and separated appellant Jabbar and complainant. P. Ws. Vikio and Taj Muhammad caught appellant Jabbar, alongwith his hatchet and brought him to the otaq of P. W. Mir Hassan, wherefrom he was taken to Tando Allahyar Police Station, together with injured complainant Allah Bux, who lodged his F. I. R. There with the Police.
3. On 2nd October, 1974 Allah Bux was S. H. O. Tando Allahyar Police Station, when on that day he recorded the F. I. R. Of complainant Allah Bux, who came at the Police Station at about 10-00 p. m.
4. He entered the same in the Station Diary Exh.
7. He then arrested appellant who was caught by the P. Ws. And also inspected the injuries on the person of appellant as well as on the person of inured complainant Allah Bux. He also secured a hatchet having blood spots. All the above performances were done in presence of mashirs Ghulam Muhammad and Bux Ali and prepared mashirnama, respectively. He then referred both appellant as well as complainant to medical officer with letters for examination, treatment and certificates. He then sent the copy of the entry in the station diary to S. H. O. Chamber Police Station, under whose jurisdiction the offence fell.
5. On receipt of the Entry of the Roznamcha of Police Station Tando Ailahyar bearing Entry No. 18, the S. H. O. Of Chamber Police Station Mr. Sattar Muhammad, on 3rd October, 1974 incorporated the same in 154, Cr. P. C. Book. On the same day he visited the wardat in pre--sence of mashirs Fazal Ahmad and Hussain, pointed out to them by P. W. Taj Muhammad, brother of the complainant. The wardat was situated at Ghanga Dhandh (lake) in deh Kaner Taluka Hyderabad, from where the blood was secured in presence of the above mashirs. Towards the South of wardat there was an otak of Yousaf and the village of Vikio towards the East of it. He prepared the mashirnama of wardat Exh. 11.
6. Then he recorded the statements of P. W. Taj Muhammad and after coming to know exact jurisdiction of offence, transferred the case papers to Tando Jam Police Station. Subsequently on 17th October, 1974, the appellant was challaned, in the Court of Vlllth Extra Joint Civil Judge and F. C.
7. M. Hyderabad. During its inquiry the appellant was subsequently sent to the trial Court for trial..
8. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence ad--duced before it, convicted and sentenced the appellant as hereinbefore mentioned and consequently the appellant has filed the above appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.
9. The learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted as under :-
(a) That there was a delay in lodging of F. I. R. Which has not been satisfactorily explained.
(b) That all prosecution witnesses are closely related to each other, including the medical officer and the appellant has suggested enmity and as such the statements of all the P. Ws. Required independent corroboration, which is not at all available in the present case.
(c) That the motive suggested by the prosecution in the F. I. R. Has not been proved and as such on this ground also the state--ments of the prosecution witnesses required independent corroboration.
(d) That all the injuries received by the injured P. W. Were simple, except in respect of the thumb, which according to the appellant was an old injury, whereas the appellant had received 12 injuries according to medical certificate, but according to appellant there were 1.8 injuries on his person.
(e) That the alleged recovery of the hatchet from the appellant cannot be used as corroborative piece of evidence, as the same was not sent to the Chemical Examiner.
(f) That the alleged wardat of the incident was situated within the Tando Jam P. S. But the complainant party filed the complaint at Tando Allahyar P. S., as the medical officer of Tando Allabyar is related to the complainant party.
10. In view of the above submissions the learned Advocate for the appel--lant submitted, that prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
11. The learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand submitted, that P. W. Vikio as an independent eye-witness and as such he has corroborated the statement of other P. Ws. Who are alleged to be closely related and have enmity with the appellant and as such prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant.
12. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the Record and Proceedings of the learned trial Court as well as through the impugned judgment.
13. Prosecution case rests upon the statements of P. Ws. Allah Bux (injured), Taj Muhammad Vikio and Muhammad Hassan.
14. Appellant has alleged enmity against P. W. Allah .Bux and P. W. Taj Muhammad who are brothers, as well as, he has further alleged, that Medical Officer Tando Allahyar is 'related to these P. Ws. And consequently, he was taken after having been injured by P. Ws. To Tando Allahyar Police Station, which had no jurisdiction at all. In view of this, in my opinion, statements of P. W. Allah Bux and P. W.
15. Tai Muhammad required independent corroboration, on account of alleged enmity suggested by both the parties against each other. Pro--secution for such corroboration has relied upon the statement of of P. W. 2 Vikio and P. W. 6 Mir Hassan. In my opinion, both these P. Ws. Cannot be considered to be independent witnesses, as P. W. Vikio is co-accused in the private complaint filed by appellant, wherea P. W. 6 Mir Hassan is Zamindar, who took complainant party to P. S. Tando Allahyar, in spite of knowing that wardat was not in the jurisdiction of the said police station and further this P. W. Went out of his way and took complainants party 28 miles to lodge report. In addition this, delay in lodging of F.I.R. In my opinion has not been satisfactorily explained. P. W. 8 Ghulam Kadir, Medical Officer, who examined the complainant and appellant has admitted his relationship with complainant and appellant has made allegations 'against him, that because of this medical officer, Tando Allahyar P. S. Was selected to manipulat medical certificate, in respect of alleged injuries on person of complainant.
16. Keeping in view my above conclusions and observations, in my opinion, prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.
17. Therefore. I allow above appeal and set aside conviction of the appellant and sentences awarded to .Him by impugned judgment and acquit him by giving him benefit of doubt and discharge the bail bonds executed by the appellant in above appeal.