A case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered against the respondents with Police Station Sangla Hill, District Sheikhupura vide F.I.R. Dated 11-3-1986. The case was got registered by Mushtaq Ahmad for the murder of Said AX and murderous assault on Akbar A.I, Tariq Mehmood and Zahoor Ahmad P.Ws. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sbeikhupura, vide his judgment dated 7-5-1987 gave the benefit of doubt to the respondents and acquitted them. The State has appealed against the acquittal of the respondents.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 11-3-1986, at about 3 p.m., Halqa Patwarn, Girdawar with police force came to Chak No. 121/R.B., Mauza Dughri, for delivering the -possession of land and Dera on it to Faqir Ullah, respondent from the possession of Mehmood. Many people gathered at the spot, where the possession was delivered peacefully to Faqir Ullah, respondent. Thereafter, the revenue officials as well as the police left the spot. At about 4 p.m. Said A.I, deceased, came back to the Dera in order to look for the iron chain of his buffalo. When he was at a distance of about 3/4 Karams from the Dera, the respondents armed with fire-arms, and Shehbaz respondent armed with a Sota, came there and fired at Said A.I. The fires hit Said A.I on different parts of his body. On hearing the shots Akbar A.I, Zahoor Ahmad, Tariq Mehmood and Akhtar Hussain, relations of Said A.I, rushed to the spot. They were also fired at. Resultantly, Akbar A.I, Tariq Mehmood and Zahoor Ahmad were also injured.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced 13 witnesses in all, but mainly it relied upon the ocular account shed by Mushtaq Ahmad, Muhammad Amin, Tariq Mehmood and Zahoor Ahmad.
All the respondents made their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Without oath wherein they refuted the entire prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. Faqir Ullah, respondent, however stated that at the relevant time after he had obtained possession. The deceased alonwith the injured P.Ws. Came to the spot in order to retake the possession of the Dera, whereupon one of his companions fired a single shot hitting the deceased and the witnesses. He further stated that the other respondents were not present with him.
4. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate-General and perused the file. The motive as set up by the prosecution, is that Said A.I, deceased went back to the Dera in order to look for the iron chain of his buffalo when he was attacked. This story of the prosecution on the face of it does not appeal to reasons because after having taken the possession of the land there was no occasion for the respondents to fire at Akbar A.I. Even otherwise also, the Investigating Officer did not find any iron chain lying at the spot, whereas the witnesses have asserted that they saw the iron chain lying near Akbar A.I when he was injured. On the other hand, the defence version appears to be more plausible that the prosecution side came to the Dera to retake the possession forcibly, which was resisted by the defence.
A close scrutiny of the statement of the doctor who examined the deceased as well as the injured also indicates that the injuries on all the injured and the deceased could be the result of a single shot. Said All, deceased had received three injuries. Akbar A.I injured also received three injuries, whereas Tariq and Zahoor Ahmad received one injury each. The dimensions of the injuries indicate that they could be the result of a single shot, because all the injuries were on the left side of the deceased as well as the injured persons.
The recoveries of fire-arms effected at the instance of the respondents cannot be used as a corroboration because no empty was secured. It is also in evidence that apart from Faqir Ullah, respondent, no other respondent had any interest in the land, therefore, the involvement of those persons becomes doubtful.
We have gone through the impugned judgment and find no infirmity in` the same. The learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for not relying upon the prosecution evidence therefore, we hold that the trial Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the respondents. Resultantly, the appeal fails which is dismissed in limine.
SA./S-358/L Dismissed in limine.