FAZAL KARIM, J.-- Muhammad Akram, respondent, was tried for the murder of Farman Ali by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. By his judgment dated 21.5.1987, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Muhammad Akram, respondent, under Section 304 Part I of the PPC and sentenced him to R.I. For 10 years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in defauIt to suffer R.I. For one year. Muhammad Akram, respondent, was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A of the Cr.P.C, and in defauIt to suffer R.I. For six months.
2. By this petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., Ahmad Ali, complainant, a brother of Farman Ali deceased, seeks the revision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge's judgment praying that the respondent, Muhammad Akram, should be convicted under Section 302 of the PPC and sentenced accordingly.
3. The incident resuIting in the death of Farman Ali did not occur in the back ground of a previous enmity. The parties belonged to the same place in Chak No.l05/R.B. On 2.4.1986 at Maghrab Wela.
Muhammad Akram, respondent, was passing by the Dhari of the complainant, when the complainant's pet dog chased him. The respondent, Muhammad Akram, gave a Panda blow to the dog. Farman Ali deceased protested; this led to an aItercation and exchange of abuses and the respondent, Muhammad akram, gave a Panda blow also on the head of Farman Ali. Iftikhar PW, who lived in a near by Dhari. Separated them. It was the prosecution case that at Maghrab Wela on 3.4.1986, Farman Ali deceased went to the Dhari of Iftikhar PW for filling the Checlam of Huqqa when Muhammad Akram, respondent, appeared on the scene, raised a lalkara and deaIt a knife blow in the abdomen of Farman Ali. Farman Ali fell unconscious.
4. Farman Ali was removed to the hospital and was medically examined and admitted. Ahmad Ali, petitioner, obtained his medico-legal report at 7.00 A.M. On 5.4.1986 but d;d not report the incident to the police till 9.10 P.M. On the same day. Farman Ali died on 6.4.1986.
5. The post-mortem examination report of the dead-body of Farman Ali showed that he had two injuries, one an incised wound in the abdomen, which proved fatal and the other a swelling 2 cm x 1 cm on the right side of head. The latter "'as probably the injury which Farman Ali had received at the hand of Muhammad Akram, respondent, on 2.4.1986.
6. The respondent's case was that the occurrence took place on the Kacha path near the Dera of Iftikhar PW. He was passing by the Dera when Farman Ali deceased, attached him and caused him injuries. He caused him only one injury in self defence.
7. Muhammad Akram, respondent, was medically examined by Dr. Riaz Ali (CW1) on 4.4.1986.
According to Dr. Riaz Ali, he had noticed eight injuries on his person, they were on his arms, legs and shoulder. They had been caused with blunt weapon; one of them, namely, an abrasion on the right arm was kept under observation. Later, all were declared simple.
8. Thus, there were two versions of the incident. The prosecution case mainly rested upon the testimony of Ahmad Ali (PW4) and iftikhar Ali, who claimed to have eye-witnessed the incident and who also gave evidence as to the alleged motive.
9. The learned trial Court found that as in the earlier incident, it was the respondent who had caused injuries to Farman Ali deceased, the motive lay with the latter. The learned trial Judge was also of the view that the incident had not occurred in the manner deposed to by Ahmad Ali and Iftikhar Ali PWs; that the prosecution had "fabricated the venue of occurrence, made improvements in the occurrence and manner thereof and deliberately suppressed the injuries on the person of accused, with a view to magnify the role of accused and term it, as a pre-concerned attackIn other words, the learned trial Judge held that" the prosecution version that accused launched a premeditated and calculated attack, has not been established."
10. The view taken by the learned trial Court was a possible view of the evidence led at the trial and even if it can be shown that a different view of the evidence could be taken, that will not justify interference. According to the prosecution itself, it was the resondent who had caused injury on the head of Farman Ali deceased; in the incident, the respondent Muhammad Akram, had also caused a Panda blow on his back. There was then the significant fact that there were injuries on the person of Muhammad Akram, respondent, but Ahmad Ali and Iftikhar PW denied that he had received injuries during the course of the incident. Thus, instead of explaining those injuries, the PWs were content with denying them. The respondent, Muhammad Akram, caused only one knife Mow to the deceased and in the proved facts of the case, the learned trial Court was within his right to reach the conclusion that he did, namely, that he had caused that injury to the deceased in the exercise of his right of self defence. The revision pettion is dismissed.