This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Magistrate Section 30, Gujrat, whereby he on 28-8-1979 convicted Hakim Ali and 9 others, the appellants under section 307/149/14Fs, P.P.C.
And sentenced them as under:- Under section 307/149, P.P.C. To 5 years' R.I. Each.
Under section 148/149. P.P.C. To 2 years' R.I. Each.
It was directed that the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The occurrence took place on 29-5-1977 at 6-00 a.m. In the area of P.S.Karianwala. The distance between the Police Station and the place of occurrence is 3 miles. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Muhammad Sadiq P.W. 2 on the same day at 1-00 p.m. And was recorded by Muhammad Safdar S.I., P.W.9.
3. The prosecution case, briefly, was that the appellants in furtherance of their comment object launched murderous assault on Muhammad Sadiq and 5 others, the injured witnesses and caused injuries to them with Sotas. The appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove its case prosecution examined 9 witnesses. Muhammad Sadiq P.W.2. Muhammad Alim P.W.3, Muhammad Arif P.W.4, Muhammad Akram P.W.5, Muhammad Fazil P.W.6 and Noor Muhammad P.W.7 have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They stated that the appellants armed with Sotas had inflicted injuries to them. Dr. Solomn F. Elahi P.W.1 has proved the medico-legal reports pertaining to the injuries of six aforesaid witnesses. He found 14 injuries caused by blunt weapons on the person of aforesaid injured witnesses. Out of the injuries found on the person of the P.W.3 injuries were declared grievous. Mardan Ali P.W.8 has stated about the recovery of (not blood-stained) Sotas from the appellants. Muhammad Safdar P.W.9 had investigated the case. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.
5. When examined under section 342. Cr.P.C., Muhammad Khan, Ahmad Ali, Muhammad Rafiq, Lai Khan and Nazir Ahmad Appellants raised the plea of self-defence. The rest of the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence 4 witnesses were produced.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as, the injured eye-witnesses were accused in the counter- case lodged by the accused party and that the eye-witnesses have not satisfactorily explained the injuries found on the person of the 5 appellants. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. I find that the eye-witnesses are interested as well as partisan. They were accused in the counter-case wherein the accused had appeared as witnesses against them. Although .5 injured appellants and Mst. Anayat Bibi had suffered as many as 26 injuries out of which 4 injuries were found grievous. The Eye-witnesses have not satisfactorily explained these injuries. I further find that the rule of prudence requires independent corroboration of the statements made by the injured witnesses which is lacking in the case in hand. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
8. For what has been stated above, while giving them the benefit of doubt, the appellants are acquitted of the charge.