' The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that petitioner Abdul Hameed had got a case registered under section 307/325/148/149, P.P.C., with Police Station Sharkargarh, District Sialkot, on 28-3-1985, against the respondents and another. The case came up before Senior Judicial Magistrate, Sialkot, who vide his judgment, dated 15-11-1987 gave the benefit of doubt to the respondents and acquitted them.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has submitted that he does not press the revision against Muhammad Nawaz respondent No,4 as his involvement in the case is doubtful.
' The prosecution story in brief is that on 28-3-1985 at 7-30 a.m., in the area of village Paghwari, the resondents while armed with Daraat and hatchets waylaid Abdul Hameed and caused him a number of injuries. He was rushed to the hospital where on his statement, F.I.R. Exh.PA. Was recorded. The doctor found nine injuries on his person. One of them was declared grievous and the rest were simple. All the injuries were caused with blunt weapon.
' It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a broad day occurrence wherein the injured as well as those who transported the injured to the hospital have appeared as witnesses, therefore, they should not have been disbelieved. Contends that the grounds on which the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents were not sustainable in law.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record. Muhammad Nawaz respondent was acquitted mainly on the ground that he was neithqr mentioned in the F.I.R.
Nor his description is given. No identification parade in respect of Muhammad Nawaz was held, therefore, he was acquitted. As far as the rest of the respondents are concerned the main ground which weighed with the learned trial Court was that not even a single sharp-edged injury was found on the person of the injured though all the witnesses are unanimous that the respondents used Daraat and hatchet yet all the injuries are with blunt weapon. This is inherent contradiction which belies the ocular account. The eye-witnesses could be believed if corroborated by some independent material piece of evidence. The respondents got recovered Daraat and hatchet but none of the weapons was stained with blood, therefore, they are of no use. It is in evidence that there were number of people gathered at the place of occurrence yet not a single person from the vicinity has been cited.
3. I have gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court and find cogent reasons for giving the benefit of doubt to the respondents have been given. For what has been discussed above, I find no force in the revision which is accordingly dismissed.