1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Two separate petitions for leave to appeal have been filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 27-6-1987. The first is Cr.P. 269 of 1987 by Liaqat Shah and the second (Cr.P.273 of 1987) is by the State. In both the petitions acquittal of Barkat and others has been challenged.
2. ' On 11-7-1981 at 11-15 a.m., an occurrence took place in the area of village Matta Singh, in which Ashraf Shah was murdered and Liaqat Shah injured. Report was lodged by Liaqat Shah at Police Station, Depalpur. It was recorded by Muhammad Anwar, H.C.
3. ' 'Barkat Iqbal, Ali Sher, Hamid and Daulat were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Okara. The trial Court by judgment, dated 9-4-1984 convicted all of them under section 302/149, P.P.C. Ali Sher, Iqbal and Hamid were sentenced to death and a fine of Rs,10,000 each or in default one year R.I.
4. Daulat and Barkat accused-respondents were sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine of Rs,10,000 or in default one year R.I. Each.
5. ' All the accused were also convicted under section 307/149, P.P.C. And sentenced to three years R.I.
6. Each and under section 148, P.P.C. Further rigorous imprisonment for three years each.
7. ' The convicts appealed to the Lahore High Court. Reference for confirmation of death sentence was also made to the High Court.
8. ' The appeal succeeded. All of them were acquitted. Hence these two petitions one by the complainant and other by the State.
9. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as a matter of fact the prosecution had proved its case beyond doubt with the help of ocular evidence; recovery as well as the medical evidence.
10. ' He submitted that the High Court erred in law in accepting the plea of the respondents regarding right of private defence.
11. ' Last of all it was contended that if at all the aforesaid plea was to be given effect then it was apparent that the respondents exceeded the right of private defence. Therefore they had incurred criminal liability for which they were to be awarded legal and proper sentence.
12. ' We don't think there is much force in these submissions. All these points were cousidered by the High Court after appreciation of evidence and were repelled by cogent reasons.
13. ' The motive for the incident was altercation over the turn of water. Finding of the High Court that no Warabandi had been sanctioned had not been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. A proper arrangement was in operation for the last four years prior to the occurrence.
14. The High Court did not accept the statement of Liaqat Shah and Maskeen regarding the turn of water as the same was not found to be convincing.
15. ' From the side of complainant, two persons were injured. One died and the other survived. They had four injuries each.
16. ' Barkat respondent gave a detailed statement pertaining to the incident. His version was different than the prosecution allegation. His statement is to the following effect:- "The complainant party are very influential people and very aggressive. At the time of occurrence it was my turn of water and I was irrigating my land when Ashraf Shah deceased and Liaqat Shah P.W. While armed with Kassi came in my land and wanted to divert the water forcibly as it was my turn of water and they had no right to do it. They tried forcibly and illegally to divert the water from my field. On my objection Muhammad Ashraf deceased attacked me with a Kassi. I, in the exercise of my right of self-defence of my person and property gave a Dang blow to him. He again attacked me with the Kassi. I in my self-defence again gave a Dang blow. At this juncture foot of Ashraf slipped from the Banna of the Khal and he fell down. After that Liaqat Shah attacked me with the Kassi. I gave him a Dang blow in my self-defence. He also fell as his feet slipped from the Banna. I then made good my escape and ran towards my house. Other accused were not present at the time of occurrence. The complainant party due to enmity and incident falsely involved all my three sons and my son-in-law. The purpose was that there was no member of my family to persue the case. All my family members have been involved in this case. I am nau-Muslim and there is only one nauMuslim family in the village."
17. The High Court compared both the versions and accepted the statement of Barkat on its face value and as he acted in self-defence and did not appear to have exceeded the right, the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentences set aside.
18. ' We have not come across any type of error in the impugned judgment which would justify leave to appeal. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed.