' This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat whereby he on 17-6-1978 convicted Abdul Waheed appellant under section 326, P.P.C. And sentenced him to R.I. For 7 years and a fine of Rs, 1,000, in default thereof, further R.I. For one year. It was directed that the fine when recovered be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation.
2. The occurrence took place on 13-3-1973 at 10-30 a.m. At Ara Machine situated in Phalia Road, Mandi Baha-ud-Din. The F.I.R. Is statement of Exh. P.A. Of Mirza Allah Ditta P.W.2 which was recorded by Abdul Khaliq S.I., P.W.16 at' 12-40 p.m. On the same day in Civil {{PAGE CUT}} 1, Mandi Baha-ud-Din. The dista4ce between place of occurrence e police station is one mile. The motive as set up by the prosecution was a dispute between ppellant and the deceased over some tools. As for the main occurrence, it has been stated that at the ful time, the accused came to Ara Machine of the complainant the deceased Muhammad Hanif was working. There developed an ,ation, between the appellant and the deceased as the accused d that the latter had brought some tools from Ara Machine of the lant. During altercation the appellant picked up a 'Nah' (a sharp- instrument) and struck it on the left thigh of the deceased. The sed fell down on the ground.
He was removed to the Hospital re he expired on the same day. The occurrence was allegedly seen Ghulam Abbas P.W.1, Mirza Allah Ditta, complainant, P.W.2 and clam Muhammad P.W.
14. The appellant was apprehended on the t alongwith the weapon of offence. He was wearing blood-stained thes at that time.
5. On 13-3-1973, Dr. Iqbal Chaddhar conducted post-mortem mination on the dead body and found following injury: "Incised wound 2" x 1" x 11" deep, going deep under skin and superficial muscle for a distance of 5" situated on the medical side of left thigh 6" above left knee directed upward and slightly oblique . "
In his opinion the death was due to excessive haemorrhage due injury to artery and vein (temporal). Such excessive and profused dden haemorrhage could cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Zi Hussain, Dispenser, P.W.15 proved the post-mortem report as he could identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Muhammad lqbal Chaddhar.
6 The appellant was produced before Abdul Khaliq S.I. Who got removed blood-stained shirt Exh.
P.6 and Shalwar Exh. P.7 from his person. Nah Exh. P.1 was produced before Abdul Khaliq S.1. P.W.16 on the spot which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.B. Attested by Mirza Roshan Din P.W.4 and Rehmat Khan P.W.5. The memo. Was prepared by Abdul Khaliq S.I. The Serologist Report Exh. G.
Shows that Nah was stained with human blood.
7. To prove its case prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Ghulam ,ibbas P.W.1, Mirza Allah Ditta P.W.2 and Ghulam Muhammad P.W. 14 nave given the ocular account of the occurrence. Mirza Allah Ditta P.W.2 supported the prosecution case. The other two eye-witnesses have refused to support the prOsecution. Ghulam Abbas P.W.1 was 'declared hostile whereas statement of Ghulam Muhammad P.W.14 recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was transferred to the files of trial Court. Mirza Roshan Din and Rehmat Khan P.W.5 were produced to prove the recovery of weapon of offence and blood- stained clothes of the appellant. {{PAGE CUT}} recovery of weapon of offence lend blood-stained clothes of the ap Mirza Roshan Din P.W.4 did not support the recovery. Sint statement of Rehmat Khan was not recorded by the police, the his evidence was disbelieved by the trial Court. Rehmat Khan and Akbar P.W.8 were the witnesses of private arrest of the tip'. On the spot. Rehmat Khan has not been believed by the trial C Akbar P.W.8 has not supported the prosecution case. The rest evidence is of formal nature.
8. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant all the incriminating circumstances. He did not produce any ev' in defence. Ifr
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosec has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts; that the eye-witnesses have not supported the allegations against the appella that Mirza Allah Ditta is not an absolutely dependable witness; that recovery of the clothes and the weapon of offence is fake and Roshan Din, the father of the complainant has not supported the elle recoveries. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has support the judgment of the trial Court.
10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the Lear counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the appellant. I find that the two eye-witne namely Ghulam Abbas and Ghulam Muhammad have not supported allegations against the appellant; that Ghulam Abbas P.W.1 is real brother of the complainant; that one of the recovery witness refused to support the recovery whereas the other was disbelievt by the trial Court on the ground that he had not made any statem before the police and that as for Mirza Allah Ditta, it is in evide that he had business rivarly with the appellant. That being position, I am of the view that conviction cannot be safely sustaine on uncorroborated testimony of the solitary witness namely Mirza Allah Ditta. So far as the recovery is concerned, the same cannot be t,seo as corroborative piece of evidence, inasmuch as, one witness n been disbelieved and the other had refused to support the prosecuti. Case. In these circumstances, it would be highly unsafe to rely on the statement of the Investigating Officer who is naturally interest a.11 in the conviction of the appellant. For all these reasons, I am of Va., view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that there being satisfactory basis to uphold the conviction and while giving him b benefit of doubt the appellant is acquitted of the charge.