Muhammad Yunus and 9 others, respondents were tried by Magistrate Section 30, Gujranwala, under section 307/365/326/109/148/149, P.P.C.
2. The allegations against the respondents were/are that Muhammad Yunus, Muhammad Yusuf, Hafiz Amjad and Babo, respondents, forcibly lifted Shahzad, son of Haji Abdul Aziz, petitioner, put him in the car and took him away. The occurrence was seen by Nawaz Ahmad, Fiaz and Imran. On the report of the petitioner a case was registered against the respondents. The investigation revealed that after his abduction Shahzad was delivered to Altaf, Shafiq, Sharif and Khalid who took him to the Service Road where Sharif, respondent/accused chopped of his nose and leaving him there, they went away. Ilyas and Allah Ditta reached the place where Shahzad was lying. They took him to the hospital. It was alleged that the occurrence took place at the instance of Abdul Rashid and Abdul Majeed, respondents.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced 9 witnesses. Haji Abdul Aziz, P.W.1, Nawaz, P.W.2, Shahzad, P.W.3, Muhammad Ilyas; P.W.4, are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Shahzad stated that on 8-8-1988 Yunus, Ahmad, Yusuf and Rafiq, respondents, forcibly lifted him, put him in the car and drove the same. Abdul Majeed and Abdur Rashid followed them on the motor-cycle. When they reached Chowk Kila Didar Singh, the aforesaid persons came out of the car, Altaf, Shafiq, Sharif and Khalid, respondents, were there. Abdul Majeed and Abdur Rashid also reached there on their motor-cycle. Rashid, Shafiq, Altaf, Sharif and Khalid: were carrying carbine, rifle, carbine, pistol, and carbine respectively. Khalid Shafiq, Altaf and Sharif took him in the car to canal Noker Wali, where his hands were tied. They took him out of the car tied his hands and Shafiq chopped of his nose on which he became unconscious. This part of the occurrence was seen by Ilyas and Allah Ditta P.Ws.
Nawaz, P.W.2, has deposed about the earlier part of the occurrence in which the petitioner was lifted from the workshop. Muhammad Ilyas, P.W.4, has supported the occurrence in which Shafiq had chopped of the nose of Shahzad.
4. Dr. Habib Alam, had medically examined Shahzad, on 8-8-1988. He found following injuries:----
(1) Incised wound (cut of nose) 4 c.m. x 3.5 c.m. Including both nostrils alongwith its septum. The remaining 2 c.m. Bridge of the nose was saved. There was frank bleeding from the injury. All soft parts of nose were amputated.
(2) Contused swelling 2.5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. On left side of head near its top. It was the middle of head from its interior to posterior side.
Injury No.1 was grievous and injury No.2 was simple, both were caused by sharp---edged weapon.
5. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The respondents raised the plea of false implication due to enmity. They did not produce any witness in defence. Muhammad Yusuf, however, produced his original Passport Exh. D.E. P.I.A. Boarding card Exh. D.F., P.I.A. Ticket Exh. D.G. In proof of his alibi. The trial Court acquitted the respondents on 22-6-1989. Hence this revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the respondent; that Shahzad the victim of the crime has named the respondents as offenders, that the medical evidence supports the ocular evidence; and that since Shahzad had given Talaq to the sister of Yunus, respondent, therefore, the respondent had a motive to abduct and chop of his nose.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I find that the eye- witnesses had involved as many as 10 persons as accused in this case. One of the accused namely Muhammad Yusuf was in Saudi Arabia on the date of occurrence. He had gone there to perform Haj. He returned in Pakistan on 10-8-1988 i.e. Two days after the occurrence. This is very much proved from the documents Exhs. D.E., D.F. And D.G. Muhammad Yusuf, respondent was found innocent during the investigation and his name was placed to column No.2 of the challan. The allegations that Abdur Rashid and Abdul Hameed were responsible for the occurrence does not appeal to reason and have rightly been disbelieved by the trial Court. Out of the respondents, three persons were found innocent by the police but the eye-witnesses have not only named the person who was in Saudi Arabia at the time of the occurrence but also the other persons who have been found innocent by the police, as offenders. From the facts and circumstances of the case, there remains no doubt that the number of the offenders was really exaggerated by the complainant Shahzad the injured witness and other eye-witnesses. There remains no doubt that Yusuf was not present in Pakistan at the time of occurrence. The eye-witnesses including Shahzad victim have not shown sanctity for oath taken by them. If they were/are capable of involving one innocent person, there remains no judicial certainty or circumstantial guarantee that they would not name the other accused falsely. The trial Court has applied its conscious mind to the relevant facts and evidence and has given sound and cogent reason for rejecting the prosecution case and the ocular evidence. The judgment of the acquittal is neither perverse nor illegal. No doubt the nose of Shahzad has been chopped of and the case is of serious nature but the fact remains that the accused cannot be and should not be convicted on the statement of basically dishonest witnesses. I feel that Shahzad victim and the eye-witnesses themselves are responsible for the acquittal of the respondents of the heinous charge. Had they not involved innocent person falsely in the case then the real culprits could not escape unpunished. So the eye-witnesses should thank themselves for the acquittal of the respondents.
8. Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court with the well-reasoned judgment of the acquittal. So this revision is, therefore, dismissed.