This appeal arises from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat dated 11-12-1985 whereby Muhammad Arshad appellant was convicted under section 304, Part 11, P.P.C. And awarded sentence of seven years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof three months' S.I. And also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2,000 to the heirs of the deceased or to undergo three months'
S.I. His four co-accused were, however, acquitted.
2. Allah Ditta (P.W.8) made statement (Exh. PA.) to Ghulam Sarwar, A.S.I. (P.W.13) on 16-11-1982 at 6- 05 p.m. In Katchery Chowk, Gujrat, the occurrence having taken place at 3-00 p.m. The same day in village Gullanwala at a distance of three miles from Police Station Sadar Gujrat. The version of the occurrence given in the F.I.R. Was that at the fateful time Allah Ditta complainant alongwith his sons Khalid Mahmood (P.W.9) and Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) were cutting fodder in their fields where the appellant with a Sota and his four co---accused armed with Sotas and hatchets reached. A blow was given in the head of Ghulam Sarwar with the hatchet from the blunt side by Ashraf co- accused. He fell down. He was then given further blows by the appellant and Khan co-accused.
Then Khalid Mahmood P.W. Went ahead to rescue his brother. He was injured by Muhammad Hayat and Muhammad Khan co-accused. Khalid Mahmood had also injured Ashraf accused and Arshad appellant in self-defence. Alarm of the witnesses attracted Muhammad Akram (P.W.10) and Muhammad Azam (given up P.W.). The motive alleged was that at the fateful time Mst. Halima, the daughter of the complainant had quarrelled with Mst. Bushra and the deceased had abused Mst.
Bushra for entering into the dispute.
3. The appellant at the close of the trial, when asked to explain the injuries on his person, stated that he and his co-accused Ashraf reached the village where their womenfolk and that of the complainant family were quarrelling. Muhammad Sarwar (deceased) and Khalid Mahmood (P.W.9) were present there and were partaking in the quarrel. He and Ashraf asked them not to interfere whereupon he and Ashraf were attacked by the deceased and Khalid P.W. On it he had snatched a Soti from Khalid P.W. And gave injury to him (Khalid). His plea was adopted by his co- accused.
4. Dr. Ghulam Mujtaba (P.W.14) medically examined Khalid Mahmood P.W. On 16-11-1982 at 4-30 p.m. And found two simple blunt weapon injuries on his person. He also examined Ghulam Sarwar medically who was profusely vomitting and was in serious condition. He had a lacerated wound 2 c.m. L---shaped, bone deep with depression around on the left side of the head and profusely bleeding.
5. This very doctor on that very day examined Muhammad Arshad appellant who was having a blunt weapon simple injury on the head near the left ear and another simple injury with blunt object on the left side of his head. Muhammad Ashraf accused was also having two' simple blunt weapon injuries in the head.
6. At the trial Allah Ditta complainant (P.W.8), Khalid Mahmood (P.W.9) and Muhammad Akram (P.W.10) gave the ocular account of the occurrence. It is clear from their statements that the parties are closely related. The complainant admitted in cross-examination that there was absolutely no enmity between them prior to the occurrence. He admitted that his were was the real maternal- aunt of Hayat accused and the grand-daughter of Muhammad Hussain accused, Azra by name, was married to his son Sarwar (deceased). According to him, the quarrel between Mst. Halima and Mst. Bushra took place at their Dera where they and the appellant family were residing. He claimed that he collected the Sota lying at the spot and gave injury to Arshad appellant while Khalid P.W.
Picked up the Sota and gave blows to Ashraf accused. He admitted that Khan and Muhammad Hussain accused were empty-handed when they (the complainant party) gave injuries to them.
He also told that he himself was not given any blow by the accused. His son injured Ashraf accused and Arshad appellant. He was also put the defence plea raised by the appellant. Khalid also tried to explain the injuries to the appellant and Ashraf co-accused. He admitted that both the appellant and Ashraf reached the hospital bleeding who were injured by him and his father.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the medical evidence and the suppression of injuries to Arshad appellant and Ashraf accused which were tried to be explained at the trial, the charge could not have been concluded against the appellant. There is much force in the contention. The learned trial Judge noted the contradiction in the eye-witness account and the medical evidence. He extended the right of self-defence to Arshad appellant but concluded that the right had been exceeded in the case of Sarwar (deceased). How this right has been exceeded, has not been made clear by him. The reasoning proceeds on suppositions but the suppositions in the administration of criminal justice are to be resolved in favour of the accused.
8. The contention is, therefore, accepted, The appellant is granted the benefit of doubt and is acquitted. He is on bail and stands discharged of the bail bonds.