' Murad Shah and 3 others were tried under section 307/324/34 of the P.P.C. On the charge of murderous assault on Fazal Shah P.W. On 25-11-1980 in Village Malhona of Police Station Jhang Saddar. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced five witnesses. Safdar Hussain P.W-1 Akhtar Shah P.W-2 and Fazal Shah P.W-3 have given the ocular account of occurrence. Fazal Shah P.W. Stated that the petitioner and his companions had launched attack on him and had caused injuries with a hatchet on his person. As for the petitioner, he stated that he had caused two injuries with his hatchet, one on his head and the other on his shoulder. Akhtar Shah and Safdar Hussain P.Ws.
Supported him. Dr. Muhammad Mumtaz P.W.6 medically examined Fazal Shah. He found three injuries on his person, out of which one was caused with sharp-edged weapon and the other with blunt weapon and the third was of pain.
3. When examined under section 342 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner denied all incriminating circumstances. He raised plea of self-defence. In defence, he produced three witnesses.
' It may be noted here that on the side of the accused, three persons, namely, Fazal Shah son of Muhammad Shah, Jamal Shah and Murad Shah had received as many as twelve injuries caused by blunt weapon and simple in nature.
4. On the conclusion of the trial, Abid Hussain Shah accused was acquitted and the others were convicted under section 324/34 of the P.P.C. And sentenced to one and a half years each and a fine of Rs,200 each, in default thereof one month R.I. Each. On appeal, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhang, acquitted the co-accused but while maintaining the conviction of Murad Shah petitioner under section 324 of the P.P.C., he reduced his sentence of one and a half years' R.I. To six months'
R.I. And a fine of Rs,200 in default thereof one month R.I., hence this revision.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were/are not reliable inasmuch as the evidence given by them was with a motive other than telling the truth. The learned counsel for the State has supported the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
6. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that on the side of the accused, three persons received as many as twelve injuries caused by blunt weapon. These injuries have been proved by Dr. Muhammad Zulfiqar D.W.3.
The injuries were not only suppressed in the F.I.R. But have also not been properly explained by the eye-witnesses. In order to given an accused benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be more than one infirmity. If there is one infirmity which creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the credibility of the eye-witnesses, that may be sufficient for disbelieving them/him.
Since in the present case, the eye-witnesses have suppressed the injuries of the three accused persons, therefore, reasonable possibility of the defence version being true cannot be excluded.
The eye-witnesses have given evidence with a motive other than telling the truth, so no reliance can be placed on their evidence.
7. Pursuant to above discussion, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge by giving him benefit of doubt. He is on bail. He stands discharged of his bail bond.