ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- This order will dispose of (i) Crl. PSLA No.592/80 filed by Muhammad Ashraf, against the acquittal. Of the three respondents in that petition and (ii) Crl. PSLA No.602/80 filed by the State against the acquittal of Solat Haider accused only.
2. Sharak Haider, Solat Haider and Haider Sohotara, respondents were tried for the murder of Muhammad Ashraf (deceased) and making murderous assault on Muhammad Ashraf (PW.4) and Muhammad Akbar (PW.6)
3. Motive for the offence is stated to be that about 1I' years before the occurrence Muhammad Akbar PW.6 developed relation with Mst. Permila Parveen d/o Haider Sohotara, converted her to Islam and married her on 1-7-1974. About 6 months before the occurrence she went to the house of the father. Muhammad Akbar .P.W.6 filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights.
4. Theprosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 7-4-1975 at about 8-30 p.m. Muhammad Ashraf PW.4, his real brother Muhammad Ashraf (deceased) and maternal uncle Muhammad Akbar PW.6, were Mehboob Street. Hafiz Shah PW.10 and Syed Mahmood (armed with a dagger), Sharak Haider (armed with iron Sooa) and Haider Sohotara empty handed, came there, Solat Haider gave two dagger blows to Arshad deceased while the deceased was held in Japhha by Haider Sohotara, Sharak Haider gave two iron Sooa blows to Muhammad Ashraf PW.4 Muhammad Akbar PW.6 tried to rescue Muhammad Ashraf whereon Haider Sohotara held Muhammad Akbar in Japhha and Solat Haider gave him two dagger injuries.
5. During the post-mortem examination of Muhammad Arshad (deceased) he was found to have sustained the following injuries:-
(1) Stab wound 1" x 1/3" over left upper back part of chest.
(2) Stab wound 1" x 1/2" over left front upper chest.
(3) Multiple abrasions within an area of 2" x 1" over right side of face.
(4) Multiple abrasions within an area of 2" x 1/4" on top of right shoulder.
(5) Multiple abrasions in an area of 2 -- " x in front of right knee.
Muhammad Ashraf PW.4 was found to have sustained the following injuries:-
1. About 2 m.m. Wound, 1/2" deep wound, 2" lateral to spine at 3-4th interceptal space right side of back.
(2) 2 mm round, 1" deep wound left side of back at 10-11 inter-costal space.
Muhammad Akbar, PW.6 sustained the following injuries:-
(1) Stab wound on left side of abdomen 2" long near left lumber region.
(2) 1 -- " long wound 1 -- " under the skin near anterior auxillary line left side at 4th-5th inter-costal space.
6. The prosecution mainly relied only on the ocular testimony of (1) Muhammad Ashraf PW.4 (brother of the deceased), (2) Muhammad Akbar PW.6 (maternal-uncle of the deceased); (3) Syed Muhammad Shah (PW.7) and (4) Muhammad Hafeez Shah (PW.10); motive and the medical evidence.
7. Sharak Haider and Haider Sohotara respondents accused denied their guilt but Solat Haider respondent admitted the occurrence and in his version he stated that he was present in Islamia Chowk together with his friends namely Mulla Faiz and Basharat when the P.Ws and Arshad (deceased) who were inimical to him and his family came there and abused him and his sister which led to an altercation resulting in exchange of brick-batting and throwing of soda-water bottles. Muhammad Ashraf P.W. Had a dagger with him which fell down and was picked up by Mulla Faiz. Muhammad Akbar PW and his companion suffered injuries while they attempted to retrieve the dagger.
8. The learned trial Court did not rely on the prosecution version and acquitted all the three accused, giving them the benefit of doubt.
The State filed an appeal against their acquittal while the complainant filed a criminal revision for the same purpose. Both the appeal as well as the revision were dismissed by the High Court.
Hence the present petitions.
9. We have heard the learned State counsel and the-learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the relevant portions of the impugned judgments of the two Courts below.
10. Considering that two of the eye-witnesses suffered injuries during the incident, their presence at the spot cannot be denied. Since the accused were known to the eye-witnesses it cannot be said to be a case of mistaken identity. The remaining two eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Shah and Muhammad Hafeez Shah, are not related to either parties.
We feel that the reasons recorded by the learned Courts below for rejecting the testimony of the eye-witnesses and acquitting Sharak Haider and Solat Haider respondents, who have been attributed active role, are not satisfactory. We, therefore, grant leave, in Cr. P. No. 602/80, filed by the State to consider whether the well-established principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases have been properly applied by the two Courts below in the present case.
As for the petition filed by the complainant (Crl. P.S.L.A. No. 592/80), the counsel has not pressed it against Haider Sohotara. Leave is, therefore, granted only with regard to Solat Haider and Sharak Haider respondents for the same purpose as in Crl. P. No. 602/80, filed by the State.
Bailable warrants shall be issued against Solat Haider and Sharak Haider respondents in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, returnable to the Assistant Commissioner, Lahore.th