This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 8th October, 1985 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala whereby the respondents while facing their trial in the said Court on a charge under section 302/307/325, P.P.C. Read with section 148/ 149, P.P.C. Were acquitted.
Respondents were tried for the murder of Muhammad Bashir and for having made a murderous assault on Munir, Liaqat and Mehtab Din (the prosecution witnesses). The. Background of the commission of crime is the trespass of the cattles of the respondent into field of the complainant side, the complainant had proceeded against such trespass and for the damages to his crops.
According to prosecution case on the day of occurrence, once again the cattles of the respondent trespassed into the field of the complainant, and the cattles were caught hold of, whereupon, the respondents launched an attack for the release of their cattles. To prove this aspect of the case at the trial, prosecution failed, inasmuch as, the Revenue Patwari had not noticed any damage to the crop, besides that the Investigating Officer had also not investigated into this aspect of the case. All the eye-witnesses also failed to point out the exact damaged field.
2. Respondents Allah Ditta, Umer Din and Muhammad Hussain had also received injuries, and were medically examined by Dr. Anjum Javed. Respondents had taken the plea that they had caused the injuries in exercise of their right of self-defence. Unfortunately, perusal of the record shows that the investigation in this case was not carried out honestly. The inefficiency of the prosecution can be judged by the fact that it failed to establish beyond any shadow of doubt the exact place where the fight had taken place. In the site plan point `A' is shown from where the blood-stained earth was collected. Point `A' falls in Khasra No. 1015 which admittedly is an Hata Chah Bavi Wala measuring about 1 Kanal and some Marlas and a water pump is located there and at some Karams from the said pump is the tube-well of the respondent. There is no proof on the record nor any steps were taken to show the possession of this piece of land. The learned trial Judge had examined Munawar Ahmed, Revenue Patwari as D.W.I, who produced the copy of Jamabandi C.W.I/1 and C.W.1/2 to show that Hata Chah was owned and possessed by the Central Government.
It was conceded by the Patwari that some of the land was purchased by the respondent on this Chah and the respondent had also relied upon the registered documents `A to E' to establish their entitlement over the area of Hata Chah and it was admitted specifically that the respondents were factually in the possession of this area. It was further conceded by the Revenue Patwari that the land under cultivation of the complainant was situated at a distance of 3/4 acres from Hata Chah.
The defence has thus admitted that the complainant side had no connection whatsoever with the Hata Chah. It is interesting to note that the Revenue Patwari has contradicted the prosecution case.
The Patwari stated that the Dera of the complainant is situated at a distance of 13/15 acres from Hata Chah Bavi Wala. According to the Patwari the complainant side had its Dera in their own land at Chah Mafi Wala. This aspect of the case establishes that the complainant did not reside at Chah Bavi Wala. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Judge rightly disbelieved that the water pump at the place of occurrence had been installed by the complainant side. Complainant Mehtab conceded that at the time of occurrence they had reached their own Dera with the cattles of the respondents. This would show that the occurrence took place somewhere near the Dera of the complainant side. Obviously, if the cattles of the respondents had been rounded up, then there was hardly an occasion to take the same towards Chah Bavi Wala. It was also contended that the tube-well of the respondent was situated close to Chah Bavi Wala and a Khal intervenes the two.
3. I have also gone through the judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge, and I am of the view that the findings arrived at by him as to the exact place of occurrence, and the determination as to the aggressor party is neither perverse nor foolish so as to merit interference. Findings are based upon correct appraisal of evidence which was made in consonance with the established principles laid down by the Superior Courts. It also was rightly observed by the learned trial Judge that the prosecution had in fact tried to suppress the injuries received by the respondent. All the injured witnesses consistently stated that the attack was opened by Allah Ditta by causing hatchet blow on the head of Bashir, but the medical evidence belies it. I have further noticed that the eye- witnesses also departed from their stand taken by them in their statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. They were duly confronted with it and it clearly seems that they were bent upon to make improvements. Recoveries of weapons, though blood stained, of this case were rightly disbelieved by the trial Judge because of the obvious, discrepancies between the statement of the investigating Officer and Muhammad Idrees P.W.4. According to the Inspector Police he had made the recoveries by 7-15 p.m. At that time P.W.4 Idrees had left the village. Besides that Idrees was rightly considered to be the chance witness who had not been able to establish his presence specifically in the village at the time of recoveries. Recovery was also disbelieved on other reasons as well. I didn't want to go in detail thereof. Suffice it would be mention that the recoveries were rightly considered to be doubtful.
4. Respondent Iftikhar and Zulfiqar did not receive any injury. They were admittedly 11 to 13 years of age respectively at the time of occurrence and they denied their participation in the occurrence. In this view of the matter they were rightly given the benefit of doubt.
5. Considering the case from all angles, the findings that it was the complainant-party which had aggressed upon the accused/respondent who had acted in exercise of the right of self-defence is not open to any exception. Findings are based upon the evidence and good reasons have been advanced in support thereof. Merely because on the basis of the evidence another view can be taken is not sufficient by itself to warrant interference with the acquittal in a case. Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.