' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.-- This Criminal Appeal No,54/88/BWP arises from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, whereby he on 10-1-1989 acquitted Allah Yar son of Jahan Khan; (2) Khair Muhammad (3) Allah Yar son of Sheikh Muhammad, (4) Muhammad Amir, (5)
Sikandar Ali and (6) Sheikh Muhammad, respondents, of the charges under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C.
2. The occurrence took place on 5-6-1986 at 11-00 a.m. In the area of Shahli Gharbi at a distance of 21 Kilometres from Police Station Shahar Fareed. F.I.R. Exh.P.E. Was lodged on the same day at 4-50 p.m. By Muhammad Yar P.W.11 and was recorded by Amjad Mahmood A.S.I. P.W.6.
3. The respondents are closely related inter se. The background of the occurrence was that Allah Yar and Khair Muhammad accused were the tenants of Dost Muhammad Moosla, who obtained in exchange 6 Acres of land adjacent to the land of the deceased, from Muhammad Bakhsh. The accused used to damage the crop of the deceased who forbade them from damaging his crop.
On this the relations between them became strained. Two days before the occurrence, mother of Allah Yar son of Jahan Khan respondent let loose her buffalo in the Barseen crop of the deceased as a result of which the deceased abused her. In return, she also abused the deceased. Hence this occurrence.
4. The version of main occurrence, as stated by the prosecution is that at the eventful time, Muhammad Hussain deceased was returning to his village after watering his cattle from a watercourse, when the respondents armed with Sotas and hatchets reached there. Shouting Lalkara as to why Muhammad Hussain had brought his cattle to the watercourse, they opened attack and injured him. The noise raised by him, attracted Muhammad Yar P.W.11, Noor Ahmad P.W.12 and Muhammad Akbar (not produced) to the spot. When they tried to intervene, the respondents gave them injuries with their weapons. Thereafter, Shahra and other persons reached the spot, on which the respondents/accused ran away taking the weapons with them. The case was originally registered under section 307/14.8/149, P.P.C. Muhammad Hussain died on the next day at 10-30 a.m. In the hospital so section 302 was added in the F.I.R.
5. On 5-6-1986, Dr. Muhammad Ashraf P.W.10 medically examined Muhammad Hussain when he was alive. He found 6 injuries on his person which were kept under observation. On the same day, he examined Noor Ahmad P.W.12 and found 6 simple injuries on his person, all caused by blunt weapon. On the same day he examined Muhammad Akbar P.W. (not produced) and found 3 simple injuries caused by blunt weapon on his person. On the same day, he examined Muhammad Yar P.W.11 and found one grievous injury on his head caused by blunt weapon. On the death of Muhammad Hussain, the doctor conducted post-mortem examination on his dead body and found following injuries:-
(1) An incised wound on the right side of skull 2 c.m. x 1 c.m.
(2) A lacerated wound in the centre of head 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. About 8 c.m. Above base of nose. Bones are depressed.
(3) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. On the right forearm.
(4) Contusion at back.
(5) Swelling on right eye.
(6) Swelling at right temporal mendibular joint.
' Injuries Nos. 1 and 3 were caused by sharp-edged weapon and the rest with blunt weapon.
' In his opinion, the death had occurred due to intra-cranial haemorrhage as a result of injury No,2 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The rest of the injuries were simple in nature. Time between the injuries and death was 24 hours and between the death and the post-mortem was about one hour.
6. On 7-6-1986, Ghulam Rasool, Inspector P.W.9 arrested Allah Yar son of Jahan Khan, Allah Yar son of Sheikh Muhammad, Khair Muhammad, Muhammad Amir and Sikandar Ali respondents. He arrested Sheikh Muhammad respondent on 12-6-1986. On 11-6-1986, Allah Yar son of Jahan Khan, Khair Muhammad, Allah Yar son of Sheikh Muhammad, Sikandar All and Muhammad Amir got recovered hatchet P.4, Soti P.5, Soti P.6, Soti P.7 and Soti P.8 which were taken into possession vide memoranda Exhs.P.I., P.J., P.L., P.M. And P.N. On 13-6-1986, Sheikh Muhammad respondent got recovered Soti P.9 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.O. The recovery memoranda were attested by Muhammad Hussain P.W.7, Muhammad Khan (not produced) and Ghulam Rasool, Inspector P.W.9.
7. To prove its case, prosecution produced 13 witnesses. Muhammad Yar P.W.11 and Noor Ahmad P.W.12 gave the ocular account of the occurrence. Muhammad Yar claimed to have seen the respondents launching attack and causing injury to the deceased with their weapons. He stated that Sheikh Muhammad respondent gave Sota blow on the head of the deceased. Allah Yar respondent gave hatchet blow on the head of the deceased. Allah Yar and Khair Muhammad inflicted Sota blows on the person of the deceased. Ramzan respondent/accused inflicted hatchet blow on the right arm of the deceased. Allah Yar son of Sheikh Muhammad inflicted Sota blow on his (Muhammad Yar P.Ws.) head and the other accused gave injuries to Noor Ahmad and Akbar P.Ws. Noor Muhammad P.W.12 fully supported Muhammad Yar P.W.11.
8. Muhammad Yar P.W.11 also deposed about the background of the occurrence. Muhammad Hussain P.W.7 supported the recoveries of the weapons of offence from the respondents. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf P.W. Has proved the medico-legal reports of the injured P.Ws. And post- mortem examination report of the deceased. In cross-examination, he stated that he had examined Khair Muhammad respondent on 5-6-1986 and had found 2 injuries on his person caused by blunt weapon. One of the injuries found on the base of the nose was found grievous. He medically examined Allah Yar son of Jahan Khan on the same day and had found 3 simple injuries caused by blunt weapon on his person. On the same day, he medically examined Khair Muhammad respondent and found 2 simple injuries caused by blunt weapon on his person.
Ghulam Rasool, Inspector P.W.9 investigated the case and effected recoveries from the respondents. Rest of the evidence is more or less is of formal nature.
10. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The respondents denied all the incriminating circumstances. They raised the plea of self-defence. In reply to question No,8 Allah Yar son of Jahan Khan stated:- "I am innocent. We had purchased 6 Acres of land from Muhammad Hussain etc. Complainant party and we had got mutated the land in the name of Dost Muhammad Mosla to avoid pre- emption suit. We were already in possession. Complainant party wished that we should take the land from one side but we did not agree to it and the complainant party had a grudge against us due to this reason. On the day of occurrence, we were watering our land when complainant party including Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Yar, Akbar and Noor Ahmad P.Ws. Etc. Armed with deadly weapons came over there and attacked us. Sheikh Muhammad accused was injured by Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Yar P.Ws. Akbar and Noor Ahmad P.Ws. Injured Allah Yar accused and Muhammad Yar.
Sheikh Muhammad accused fell down after receiving the injuries. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Ramzan absconder accused came there who in order to save his father inflicted certain hatchet blows to Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Yar, Akbar P.Ws. From wrong and right side. We had reported the matter to the police who sent the injured to the hospital for treatment. After the death of Muhammad Hussain deceased we were falsely involved in this case due to mala fides."
' The remaining respondents made similar statements. Allah Yar son of Jahan Khan respondent gave evidence on oath in disproof of the charges against the respondents.
11. Disbelieving the prosecution case and believing the plea of the self-defence raised by the respondents, the trial Court acquitted them. Hence this State appeal.
12. The learned A.A.-G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the respondents; the presence of the witnesses, namely, Muhammad Yar and Noor Muhammad is a proved and admitted fact; that they had no previous enmity to involve the respondents falsely in the case; that the trial Court has disbelieved the motive and the ocular account of the occurrence given by the eye-witnesses without cogent reasons and that no case of right of self-defence to the respondents is made out from the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case.
13. We have anxiously attended to the arguments of the learned A.A.-G. And have reviewed the entire evidence that has been produced by the parties and the circumstances appearing in the case. We feel persuaded to agree with the reasons given by the trial Court for disbelieving the motive, ocular account of the occurrence given by the two eye-witnesses; disbelieving the eye- witnesses and for believing the plea of the self-defence raised by the respondents. On our independent assessm ent we find that the motive incident which allegedly took place two days before the occurrence in which the mother of one of the respondents was abused by the deceased,is not mentioned in the F.I.R. It seems to us that this incident has falsely been introduced to strengthen the prosecution case. The two eye-witnesses have not satisfactorily explained the injuries of the three injured accused. Muhammad Yar simply explained one of the injuries of Sheikh Muhammad respondent. He stated that he in his self-defence and the defence of his brother Muhammad Hussain had inflicted Soti blow to Sheikh Muhammad accused/respondent. Noor Muhammad stated that during the occurrence, Sheikh Muhammad accused was injured at the hands of Muhammad Yar complainant whereas three persons on the side of the accused, namely, Sheikh Muhammad, Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Yar son of Rehmat Khan had received as many as 7 injuries including grievous injury caused by blunt weapon. This shows that the eye- witnesses have given evidence with a motive other than that of telling the truth. No doubt the presence of the two eyewitnesses at the time of occurrence on the spot is established by the fact of injuries on their person and has also been admitted by the respondents/accused but this does not mean that the statements made by them should be accepted as a gospel truth. In any case, there is no independent corroboration of their statements with regard to the story of the occurrence told by them. We are convinced that the two eye-witnesses cannot be believed for convicting the respondents for the murder of Muhammad Hussain and injuries to the P.Ws. So, this piece of evidence has to be excluded from consideration. Having discarded the ocular account of the occurrence given by the two eye-witnesses, the statements of the respondents made under section 342, Cr.P.P. Remain in field which have to be accepted as a whole. The statements made by the respondents show that they had caused the death of the deceased and injuries to the P.Ws. In exercise of the right of self-defence of person which extended to the causing of the death. The trial Court has believed the version of the occurrence given by the respondents for good reasons. The learned trial Judge was of the view that the plea of self-defence was consistent and probable as well. We do not see any reason to disagree with him. It is by now well-settled that with the acquittal of the accused the presumption of innocence in his favour becomes double. As such strong and exceptional grounds would be required for interfering with the same which we do not see in the case in hand. The judgment of the learned trial Court is not manifestly wrong.
14. Pursuant to the above discussion, this appeal is dismissed.