The present criminal revision petition filed against the acquittal of the respondents was admitted to regular hearing by my learned brother Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J. Vide order dated 8-10-1985 in respect of respondents, Sanatta and Chogatta only and notice issued to the said respondents and the State, whereas the revision petition qua Ghafoor, Abdur Rehman's, Sharif and Hakim Ali, respondents was dismissed by the same order.
2. The brief facts leading to the present criminal revision petition are that a case vide F.I.R.
No.79/1976, dated 31-3-1976 under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Chunian, District Kasur against all the respondents named above. They were all tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, on the charges under the sections staled above. The learned trial Court, after duly appraising the prosecution evidence on the record and taking into consideration the statements of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Had held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, Ghafoor, Abdur Rehman's, Sharif and Hakim Ali, the respondents, against whom the present revision petition stands dismissed, whereas acquitted the present respondents namely Sanatta and Chogatta, by holding that they had caused injuries to the deceased and the injured P.Ws. In exercise of their right of self-defence.
3. As stated above, the present criminal revision petition was admitted only to the extent of respondents, Sanatta and Chogatta, to consider whether the learned trial Court had failed to correctly assess the liability of the said respondents while acting in self-defence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the State had been heard at length and the record of the case perused with their assistance.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly based his case on the argument that even if the plea of self-defence of the said two respondents is accepted, as they had caused death of one person and injuries to three others, therefore, they were guilty of offence falling under the provisions of either Part I or Part II of section 304, P.P.C. The argument stated above was advanced by basing the same on the finding of the learned trial Court to the effect that it was the complainant party who had attacked the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the respondents had been acquitted for valid reasons, as stated in the impugned judgment, and further submitted that the learned trial Court had brought in verdict of acquittal against all the accused in consonance with the provisions of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further submitted that the right of self-defence cannot be measured in `golden scales' and that the learned trial Court was best judge of determining whether or not right of self-defence or private defence had been exceeded. Further submitted that as the petitioner had not challenged the findings of the learned trial Court to the effect that the present respondents were entitled to acquittal as they had caused the death of the deceased and the injuries to the P.Ws. In exercise of their right of self-defence, therefore, the said acquittal of the respondents cannot be interfered with under the revisional jurisdiction.
7. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the State are very pertinent and duly borne out by the settled principle of law that the right of self---defence cannot be measured in `golden scales', and that the right of self-defence continues as long as there is reasonable apprehension of harm. In the instant case, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity of law, nor the right of exercise of self-defence by the respondents is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, no case is made out for interfering with the findings of acquittal in favour of the respondents, Sanatta and Chogatta, by the impugned judgment. Resultantly, the present criminal revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The respondents, Sanatta and Chogatta, are on bail.
Their bail bonds stand discharged.