' In brief the facts of this case are as follows:- ' Muhammad Suleman complainant P.W.3 was sleeping in his house on the morning of 16-12-1985.
He got up on hearing Azan and saw Muhammad Hussain, Ishaque and Latif accused armed with sticks entering his house. Muhammad Hussain gave stick blow on the wrist and back of head of Muhammad Suleman. Latif gave a stick blow on his temple and Muhammad Ishaque inflicted stick blow on the middle of his head. The alarm attracted Muhammad Ishaque P.W.4 and Muhammad Ibrahim given up P.W. The accused left the spot where after Muhammad Suleman was taken to Civil Hospital, Kot Radha Kishan for examination and treatment. Muhammad Suleman regained consciousness on 6-1-1986 which fact was reported by the Medical Officer to police vide letter Exh.P.B. A.S.I. Faiz Ahmad P.W.6 went to Civil Hospital and recorded statement Exh.P.D at the instance of Muhammad Suleman P.W.3 at 400 p.m. On 6-1-986. This statement was sent to Police Station Raiwind District Kasur, about ten miles from the place of occurrence, in the house of Muhammad Suleman complainant in Kot Radha Kishan Town where formal F.I.R. Exh.P.D./1 was recorded on the same evening at 5-15 p.m. By A.S.I. Ikhtiar Hussain P.W.2.
' The motive was stated to be that Mst. Bano, a daughter of Muhammad Yousaf was betrothed to Liaqat, a son of Muhammad Hussain accused about 3/4 years before this occurrence. The said engagement broke down and Mst. Bano was married to someone else about 24/25 days before the present occurrence.
2. Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim P.W.1 on 16-12-1985, at 9-00 a.m. Medically examined Muhammad Ishque P.W.3 and noted five blunt weapon injuries of within eight hours duration on his person. Injury No.1 was 'a lacerated wound 6 c.m. x 1 c.m. Bone deep on left temporal region'. Injury No.2 was 'a lacerated wound 'Y' shaped 4 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Bone deep in the centre of the scalp'. There was a swelling of left eye besides two minor injuries on head and right wrist. Injuries 1 and 2 were found grievous in nature because of multiple fracture in the vault of scalp.
3. The Investigating Officer A.S.I. Faiz Ahmad P.W.6 on 7-1-1986 during inspection of the place of occurrence collected blood-stained earth and took into possession a piece of wood P.1 vide memo.
Exh.P.E. Two sticks alleged to have been left at the spot by the accused Ishaque and Muhammad Hussian were produced by Liaqat vide memos. Exh.P.G. And Exh.P.H. Before the Investigating Officer on 16-1-1986.
3. In support of its case prosecution examined six witnesses in all. P.W.3 Muhammad Suleman and his brother P.W.4 Muhammad Ishaq are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Muhammad Suleman son of Abdul Haq P.W.5 witnessed incriminating recoveries. The case was investigated by A.S.I. Faiz Muhammad P.W.6. The evidence of the rest of the witnesses was of formal nature.
' The accused, when examined after close of prosecution evidence denied the charge and pleaded innocence. They examined Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Virk Magistrate D.W.1 and Rao Muhammad Shamshad Councillor D.W.2 in their defence. Muhammad Hussain accused also made statement on oath in his defence. It was stated by these defence witnesses that Muhammad Suleman complainant received injuries at the hands of unknown Hathora group assailants.
' Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Bhatti, Magistrate Section 30, Kasur at Chunian vide impugned judgment dated 11-7-1988 sentenced Muhammad Hussain 60, Muhammad Ishque 50 and Muhammad Latif 32 to suffer two years' R.I. And fine of Rs.1,000 or in default four months' S.I. Under section 452/34, P.P.C. To three years' R.I. And fine of Rs.1,500 or in default six months S.I. Under section 326/34, P.P.C. And to five years' R.I. Plus fine of Rs.2,000 or in default nine months' S.I. Under section 307/34, P.P.C. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The three accused were directed to pay Rs.5,000 under section 544A, Cr.P.C. Cash as compensation to Muhammad Suleman P.W.3.
Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have carefully perused the record.
The occurrence took place at about morning Azan time on 16-12-1985 but the F.I.R. Was recorded on 6-1-1986 at 4-00 p.m. In Civil Hospital, Kot Radha Kishan. It was explained in the F.I.R. Exh.P.D. By Muhammad Suleman P.W.3 that the accused remained pressing him and his parents not to report the matter to police but he did not agree and ultimately got the present case registered. In my view, this explanantion was not satisfactory. It was stated by Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim P.W.1 when recalled for cross-examination on 4-7-1988 that when he was examining Muhammad Suleman, his relatives had brought the police to hospital; that he had informed the police that the injured was unconscious and that after every 2nd or 3rd day, the police continued contacting him in this case.
The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by Muhammad Ishaque P.W.4, a real brother of Muhammad Suleman P.W.3. He should, therefore, have reported the matter immediately after the occurrence specially in the circumstances that the condition of Muhammad Suleman was precarious. The F.I.R. Was recorded after about 21 days of the occurrence. In my view, the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Has not been satisfactorily explained and it casts doubt on the prosecution story. It was admitted by Muhammad Suleman P.W.3 in cross-examination that he was prosecuted for causing injuries to Aman Ullah and Khushi Muhammad. This admission indicates that Muhammad Suleman P.W. Had other enemies also. The occurrence admittedly took place during night and it appears that the present accused have been involved on account of suspicion.
' There is another aspect of the case which requires consideration. The Medical Officer noted five injuries on the person of Muhammad Suleman. Injuries 1 to 3 were on head. Injury No.4 was on eye and injury No.5 was on wrist. However, in his statement during trial, Muhammad Suleman P.W.3 did not make any mention of injuries on his eye and wrist. In the F.I.R. Only three injuries, one each to the three accused, were mentioned. This fact also indicates that Muhamamd Suleman P.W.3 was not able to identify his assailants at the time of occurrence. A perusal of the statement Exh.P.D and the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.D. 1 would show that there is material difference regarding narration of facts about infliction of injuries by the accused in them. The prosecution case is supported by P.W.4 Muhammad Ishaque only who is a real brother of Muhammad Suleman complainant. He resided in a separate house from that of his brother. The occurrence must not have lasted for long and it was, therefore, not possible for Muhammad Ishaque P.W.4 to have reached the place of occurrence to witness the inflicting of injuries by accused on the person of Muhammad Suleman P.W.3. There is no circumstantial evidence to corroborate the eye-witnesses of this case. In my view, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused are accordingly given benefit of doubt and acquitted from all the charges. Their conviction and sentence on all charges is set aside. This appeal is accepted. The three appellants shall be released from prison, if not required in any other case.
5. In view of the above decision in appeal, the connected criminal revision is dismissed in limine.