Muhammad appellant has been convicted under section 323, P.P.C. For causing hurt to Mst.
Mumtaz Begum P.W. He alongwith fourteen others were tried under sections 307 and 148/149, P.P.C.
By the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. The case against the appellant and his co- accused was tried as a counter-case.
2. The charges against the appellant and his co-accused were that they, in furtherance of their common object, launched attack and caused injuries to Mrs. Mumtaz, Muhammad Yaqoob and Mst. Bhagan. Mst. Mumtaz received three simple injuries with blunt weapon. There were two fire- arms wounds on the person of Muhammad Yaqoob and two gun wounds were on the person of Mst. Bhagan P.W. While acquitting the co-accused, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 323, P.P.C., as stated above.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the eye-witnesses including the injured witnesses were interested and since there was no corroboration of their statements, the trial Court should have acquitted them. The learned counsel was of the view that the medical evidence could not have been used as corroborative piece of evidence. No one has appeared for the State.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with him. I find that the trial Court has acquitted fourteen co-accused on the ground that there was no corroboration of the statements of the eye-witnesses qua them, but has convicted the appellant only on the ground that the medical evidence shows that there were injuries caused by blunt weapon on the person of Mst. Mumtaz Bibi. The view taken by the trial Court with regard to the corroborative evidence is erroneous inasmuch as corroboration of the testimony of interested witnesses is always required both as to the factum of incident as well as regarding the identity of the offender. The medical evidence may support the factum of the incident, but it grill hardly connect the offender with the injuries found on the person of the victim. This being the position, the case of the appellant remains at par with the case of the co-accused acquitted by the trial Court on the same evidence. For these reasons, I am convinced that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.
5. Pursuant to the above discussion, this appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged on his bail bond.