This criminal revision arises from the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, whereby he, on 11-5-1986 acquitted Javaid Iqbal, Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Iqbal, Zafar Iqbal and Muhammad Bashir respondents, of the charges under sections 307, 326 and 148/149 of the P.P.C.
2. The allegations against the respondents were that they formed an unlawful assembly and, in furtherance of their common object of the said unlawful assembly, they launched murderous assault on Muhammad Latif, on the night between 14/15th January, 1985, in the area of Jinnah Colony, within the limits of Police Station City Sialkot. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced six witnesses. Muhammad Latif P.W.3 was an employee in the Stainless Steel Factory of Javaid Iqbal respondent/accused. He stated that at the eventful time he went to the hand pump, installed in the factory of Muhammad Nawaz for washing his face. Javaid Iqbal came there and asked him to work more, on which he replied that he was tired and could not work anymore. On this Javaid Iqbal abused him and he returned the abuses. At that time the co-accused Zafar, Iqbal, Nawaz and Muhammad Bashir were present there. Iqbal and Zafar got hold of him, Javaid picked up a Toka and Iqbal picked up an iron rod which were lying in the factory. Muhammad Bashir raised Lalkara that he (Muhammad Latif) be taught lesson.
Whereon Javaid Iqbal gave injuries on the different parts of his body, with his Toka. The occurrence was also seen by Jarar Hussain and Tariq Mehmood Jarar Hussain P.W.4, supported the statement of Latif P.W.3. Dr. Muhammad Nasrullah P.W.1 examined Muhammad Latif, P.W.3 on 15-1-1988. He found as many as 25 injuries caused by sharp and blunt weapons on his person. One of the injuries was grievous. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., respondent, other than Javed Iqbal and Nawaz, denied their participation in the occurrence and raised plea of false implication. Javaid and Nawaz pleaded self-defence. Muhammad Nawaz stated that:-- '
"My factory of stainless steel is situated in Jinnah Colony. Adjoining to my factory there is factory of my brother Javaid Iqbal co-accused. This factory is also of stainless steel. Muhammad Latif P.W.
Was working in my factory since last six months before this occurrence. This occurrence took place on 15-1-1985, at about 3-00 a.m. I had placed a cheque valuing about Rs.35,000 and cash valuing about Rs.10,000 in the drawer of my table in the presence of Latif P.W. Latif P.W. Muhammad Nawaz, Worker, Noor Muhammad and Anwar worked till 10/10-30 p.m. At about 11/11-30 p.m. I went to my bed, which was lying in the Veranda of my factory. Nawaz worker, Noor Muhammad and Anwar went to the factory of Javaid Iqbal my co-accused for sleeping there: -At about 3-00 p.m. I felt that some body has inserted his hand into my pocket. I were -up and saw Muhammad Latif P.W.
Standing there. He was armed with a Toka. Latif P.W. Inflicted Toka blow on right side of my check and demanded keys from me. I raised hue and cry, which attracted Noor Muhammad, Anwar and Nawaz worker and Jawed Iqbal my co-accused. The remaining part of my answer is the same as that of my co-accused Javaid Iqbal in answer to question No.16."
It may be noted here that Javaid in question No.18 had further stated that on hearing the cries of his brother Muhammad Nawaz, he went to the factory of Muhammad Nawaz and saw Muhammad Latif inflicted injuries on the person of his brother. When he intervened Muhammad Latif gave Toka blow from his wrong side on his head. He raised alarm which attracted Anwar, Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Nawaz worker, who in order to save them inflicted injuries to Latif and Jarar Hussain P.W. Dr. Nasrullah P.W. Was produced to prove the injuries of the accused party.
5. On the report of the accused party, a case under section 17 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and under section 307, P.P.C. Was registered against Muhammad Latif injured P.W. And others, on the following day of the occurrence. The present case was registered against the respondents after 7 days of the occurrence. Both the cases were challaned. Since in the counter-case lodged by the accused party challan was submitted against the complainant party under Hudood Ordinance in the Court of Session, so the present case was sent up for trial before the same Court.
6. Disbelieving the prosecution case, the trial Court acquitted the respondents on 11-5-1986. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Muhammad Latif, complainant, has 'filed this revision. The order, dated 12-1-1987 of this Court shows that this revision was admitted to the extent of Javid Iqbal and Muhammad Nawaz, respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against Javaid Iqbal and Muhammad Nawaz; that the prosecution evidence has been rejected without justification, that Latif (petitioner) and Jarar Hussain P.W.4 are reliable witnesses and their statements are supported by the medical evidence; that the defence version was false; and that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that both the parties had received injuries during the occurrence; the accused party also received sharp-edged injures which have not been properly explained. The explanation given by the prosecution witnesses that the accused/respondents had received injuries at the hand of their companions on its face seems to be ridiculous. Muhammad Nawaz although armed with iron rod yet he did not cause any injury as stated by the prosecution. According to the prosecution, 25 injuries found on the person of Latif were caused by Javaid Iqbal alone. Whereas according to the defence version injuries were caused by three persons in self-defence. The trend of the statements of the eye-witnesses shows that they have given evidence with a motive other than of stating the truth. The learned trial Court has applied its conscious mind to the evidence on record and while appreciating the evidence in accordance with the well-settled rules has given sound reasons for disbelieving the prosecution case. The judgment of the acquittal is neither perverse nor illegal. It is well-settled that once an accused person is acquitted by a Court of competent jurisdiction then strong and exceptional grounds would be required for interference with the judgment of acquittal, which I do not see in the case in hand. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid of force and substance.
9. Pursuant to the above discussion there being no merit the revision application is dismissed.