' This Criminal Appeal No, 363 of 1978 and the connected Criminal Revision No, 415 of 1978 by Meraj Din against acquittal of Sikandar Hayat and Zafar Abbas co-accused and for the enhancement of the sentence of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 arise from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, whereby he on 24-4-1978 while acquitting the two co-accused convicted Sardara, Muhammad Hussain, Mahmood and Muhammad Aslam appellants and sentenced them as under:-
(1) Under section 148, P.P.C.-- One year's R.I. Each
(2) Under section 452/149, P.P.C.-- 2 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,500, in default thereof 6 months' R.I.
Each.
(3) Under section 324/149, P.P.C.-- Two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,200, in default thereof two months'
R.I. Each.
(4) Under section 323/149, P.P.C.-- Six months' R.I and a fine of Rs,100, in default thereof one month's R.I. Each.
' It was directed that the sentences shall run concurrently . I propose to dispose of them through single judgment.
2. The prosecution case was that Sardara and 5 others variously armed in furtherance of their common object trespassed into the shop of Meraj Din P.W. And launched murderous assault on Meraj Din, Sultan and Ashraf P.Ws. And caused simple injuries with sharp and blunt weapon to them. Meraj Din P.W.4 and Ashraf P.W.5 have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They claim to have seen the accused after having entered into the shop of Meraj Din duly armed, causing injuries to Meraj Din, Sultan and Muhammad Ashraf P.Ws. Dr. Altaf Hussain had examined the injured witnesses. He found 11 injuries on the person of Meraj Din, out of which 4 injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon while other injuries were with blunt weapon. The injury on the back of right hand below thumb was found grievous. He found 6 injuries on Muhammad Ashraf, all caused by blunt weapon and simple in nature. He found 4 sharp-edged injuries on the person of Nawaz a companion of the appellants who was seriously injured during the occurrence resulting in his death. The Doctor had also examined Sardara appellant and found one simple injury caused by blunt weapon on the left side of his head. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellants and acquitted accused denied all the incriminating circumstances. Sardara appellant raised the plea of self-defence. He stated:- "The prosecution version of the occurrence is incorrect. On the day of occurrence myself alongwith Akbar and Muhammad Nawaz was passing through the Bazar. When we passed in front of the shop of Meraj Din P.W. The latter came out and asked Muhammad Nawaz deceased to pay him the price of the shoe which he had earlier bought. Muhammad Nawaz deceased could not pay the price of shoes and then Meraj Din picked up a Chhuri from the shop of Wali Muhammad Qassab and called Muhammad Ashraf, Sultan, P.Ws. And two other persons named Ghulam Nabi and Rafique for help. Rafique and Sultan aforesaid caught hold of Muhammad Nawaz deceased while Meraj Din P.W. Gave him Chhuri blows. Ashraf P.W. Gave blows with Rambi to Muhammad Nawaz deceased. When I tried to intervene Ghulam Nabi aforesaid gave me a blow with hockey. Sultan P.W. Sustained injury at the hand of Meraj Din P.W. Akbar aforesaid caused injuries to Meraj Din and Ashraf P.Ws. With Sotas. Muhammad Nawaz deceased had a hatchet with him and in self-defence he caused injuries to Meraj Din P.W. Muhammad Nawaz deceased expired in the hospital on the same day and a case for his murder was registered against Meraj Din, Ashraf and Sultan P.Ws. And Rafique and Ghulam Nabi aforesaid. Since I was a witness in the murder case, I have been falsely implicated in this case."
' In defence he did not produce any witness.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there were cross-cases; that the complainant party of this case was accused in the counter-case under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of Muhammad Nawaz; that the opposite party has been acquitted in the counter-case; that the eye- witnesses' are not reliable and that there was a reasonable possibility of the defence version being true. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court. No one has appeared for the petitioner in the connected criminal revision. It appears that the petitioner is no more interested.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that there were cross-cases between the parties; that the accused in the case in hand were witnesses in the counter-case; that the eye-witnesses have not properly explained the injuries found on the person of Sardara appellant and Muhammad Nawaz deceased; that the eye- wtinesses are partisan and that there is no independent corroboration of the story of the prosecution. For all these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
6. The upshot of the discussion is that there being no satisfactory basis to uphold the conviction and while giving them benefit of doubt, the appellants are acquitted of the charges. Resultantly, the connected revision fails.