The appellant was convicted by Mr: A. D. Ansari, A. C. M., Karachi, for an offence under section 3.24, P. P. C. And sentenced to undergo R. I. For eight months and, also to .Pay a fine of Rs. 300 or in- default to undergo further three months' R. I. An appeal was taken to the Court of Sessions and was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, resulting in this Revision Application.
2. The prosecution story is that the relations between the applicant Musharraf Ali, and the complainant, Nisar Ahmed, were under strain since 1963, and there were some proceedings between the parties in the Court. On the 17th Aril 1968 at about 11 p. m, Nisar Ahmed-was standing outside his building known as Qabla Building situated in Ranchore Lines, Karachi. The applicant is also a tenant in this building. It is alleged that after an exchange of harsh words, the applicant had inflicted to incised injuries on Nisar Ahmed, and thereafter made good his escape. The incident is said to have been witnessed by three persons, namely Petu, Jalaluddin and Bisharat Ali, It might as well be mentioned that to other persons were implicated in the F. I. R., but the case was challaned against the applicant only.
3. The applicant to Ins statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. Denied the various allegations made against him and stated that he had been run down maliciously, because there was a bad blood between the parties.
4. The witnesses examined at the trial in support of the incident apart from Nisar Ahmed, the complainant and his father, Mohammad Ishaq, were P. Ws. Jalaluddin, Shamsuddin; Majid Khan and Bisharat Ali. There was some conflict between the versions of these witnesses with regard to the origin of the trouble but as the mattes stand it is hardly necessary to dilate on the same. Out of these witnesses Bisharat Ali did not support the prosecution case and was cross-examined by the P. S. 1. Petu was not examined at all. Out of the three witnesses named in the F. I. R. Only Jalaluddin corroborates the version of the complain-- at. Jalaluddin denied that he had appeared as a witness on behalf of the complainant's father Ishaq Khan in a proceeding under section 107; Cr. P. C.
Against the applicant but that was admitted by Ishaq Khan. It is, however, admitted by him that Ishaq Khan was a witness on his behalf in a criminal case in the Court of S. Aftab Hussain, Addl. City Magistrate, Karachi. The names of P. Ws. Shamsuddin and Majid Khan are not to be found in the, F. I.
R. It also appears; that the version furnished by Majid Khan in regard to the beginning of the trouble is at variance with others.
5. It was urged by Mr. M. A. Hamid, learned counsel for the applicant, that the testimony of the witnesses of the incident would be of no evidentiary value because on the showing of the complainant himself; the assailants had taken to their, heels before they could appear on the scene: He further contended that otherwise to, Majid, Khan and Shamsuddin cannot be relied upon because their names are not to. Be found in the F. I. R. He sought reliance, from Mamoon and, another v. The State (PLD 1962 Kar.. 800) and Khalil v. The State (PLD 1956 Lah: 840) in support of his contention. P: W. Jalaluddin patently is an interested witness and therefore; the fact his name is to be found in the F. I, R. Will not clinch the matter. What is worse three persons had been implicated in the F. I. R. And admittedly to of them had not been sent up by the police. The Investigating Officer has stated that they had not been challaned, as no evidence was forthcoming against them. Thus it is abundantly trade out that from the very out set, the complain--at had implicated to innocent, persons, against whom he was nursing some grudge. It is true that them are injuries on the person of Nisar Ahmed, but the incident had taken place late in the night, and in view of the strained 'relations between the parties, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the applicant came to be named on mere suspicion. Mr. M. A. Hamid, learned counsel for the applicant, has also cited State v. Basirullah (PLD 1964 Dacca 710) which, is to the effect that if the material witnesses had been disbelieved in regard to some of the accused, they should be considered untrustworthy-in regard to the rest. 'There are a; number .Of authorities where the same view has found favour.
6. Mr. Manzur Hussain, learned counsel for the State, argued that the evidence of the witnesses accepted by the trial and the Appellate Courts, could not be disturbed, in a Revision Application. In the instant case the matter goes further; Shamsuddin and Majid Khan's testimony had to be totally discarded, as their names are not to be found in the F. I. R. Jalaluddin is an interested person. Out of the, other witnesses,, named in the F. I. R., one has kept away and the other has not supported the prosecution story. Then there are other inherent infirmities, as referred to above. I am afraid, there is no force in the contention.
7. In the result, I am of the opinion that the case against the applicant is extremely doubtful. He would be entitled to the benefit thereof not as a matter of grace but as of right. I, would therefore; set aside the conviction and sentence and allow the Revision Application. The applicant is on bail.
The bail bonds stand cancelled.