' This is a revision petition against the judgment, dated 29-11-1967 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby he acquitted the accused-respondents.
2. The story of the prosecution in this case was that complainant party was in possession of disputed two Kanals of land and that on 31-12-1965 at Peshiwela, Hakeem Din deceased was working on his well Sunder Singh Wala and his brothers Taj Din P.W.3 and Yasin P.W.4 were watering the field and in the nearby Banjar land, their father Yousaf P.W. 16 and Hassan Din P.W. 15 were grazing cattle. In the nearby well All Muhammad P.W.14 and Muhammad Ashiq P.W.15 were watering their field. The accused-respondents came from the side of the village to Sunder Singh Wala well. Sahib Din and Shaukat respondents cut the water flow of the complainant party and started irrigating their own wheat crop. They were abusing the complainant party. Thereafter, all the accused-respondents made an attack on Taj Din and Yasin P.Ws. Shaukat Ali respondent gave a Barchhi blow to Taj Din who fell down. Noor Din gave a Barchhi blow to Yasin who fell down. Ali Jang gave a Barchhi blow to Hakeem Din deceased, who also fell down. After the three injured fell down, all the accused-respondents continued injuring them with their respective weapons. On the way while returning to their village, Sahib Din had also given a Dang blow on the head of Hassan Din. As a result of injuries received in the occurrence, Hakeem Din died.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge made a very careful appraisal of the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the story that the complainant party was in possession of two Kanals of land was incorrect and that it was the respondents, who were in possession. He disbelieved the recoveries of weapons of offence from accused-respondents and came to the conclusion that it was the complainant party who had tried to take possession of said land and had attacked the accused-respondents, who had acted in right of private defence. He held that since Ali Jang and Sahib Din were injured by Dangs, they had the right of private defence in inflicting injuries which they did in the present case. He also held that Sahib Din was 75 years of age and Ali Jang was 90 years of age and when these two old persons were attacked with Dangs, as is evident from the medico-legal reports, they could naturally apprehend grievous hurt or death and had the right to inflict as many injuries on the complainant party as had actually been found in this case and they could not be said to have exceeded the right of private defence of their persons.
4. I have perused the entire evidence. I am of the view that the inferences drawn by the trial Court from prosecution evidence are possible to be drawn. They are not perverse. In this respect, it is necessary to point out that All Jang had 8 injuries including one grievous injury while Sahib Din had 7 injuries. There was no proper explanation in the F.I.R. In respect of these injuries and the attempt to explain these injuries did not find favour with the Additional Sessions Judge as he found the said explanation to be false. The State did riot file any appeal against this acquittal. No case is, therefore, made out for setting aside the acquittal order and for remand of the case for retrial.
Furthermore, the case relates to the year 1965, which finally ended on 29-11-1967 in the acquittal of the respondents. After such a long time, it would indeed be extremely hard to send the case back to the trial Court for retrial. Out of the respondents, Shaukat and Noor Din have already died as there are reports on the record of this case to that effect. So far as Sahib Din is concerned, he was shown to be of 75 years of age at the time of occurrence while All Jang was shown to be of 90 yeaRs, Fahim-ud-Din and Wajid Ali were shown to be of 50 years of age each. There is no knowing that these persons are at all living or not. In case, they are still living, then Sahib Din must be of 94 years and Ali Jang of 110 years of age, while the remaining two would be of 70 years of age each. In these circumstances, therefore, I am not inclined to send the case back to the trial Court for retrial.
5. In view of the above, I dismiss this revision petition.