Shaukat Ali has filed this petition for Special Leave to Appeal under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. Against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat dated 27-11-1990, whereby he acquitted the respondents of the charge under sections 302/149 and 148, P.P.C.
2. Briefly, the facts are that Abdul Ghani deceased owned five Kanals of land near the graveyard of village Ganja, which was being used by the villagers on the occasion of Eid-uz-Zoha for slaughtering their animals. It is alleged that on 16-8-1986, after Isha prayer the deceased announced on the loudspeaker in the mosque forbidding the villagers not to use that piece of land for slaughtering their animals. This was resented to by Akhtar respondent who appeared in the mosque armed with a rifle, but they were separated by Ansarul Haq.
On 17-8-1986 at about 7-15 a.m., the petitioner alongwith his father, Abdul Ghani deceased and others were on their way to the mosque. When they were passing in a lane in front of the Dara of Akhtar respondent son of Ahmad Khan; they saw Akhtar and his brother Rauf alongwith their co- accused present there. On the instigation of Akhtar respondent, the accused party started indiscriminate firing at the complainant party. Muhammad Aslam P.W. Also fired in the air.
Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith his companions went over the roof of the common Dara of the village, and so did Akhtar and Rauf. Both of them are stated to have fired and a shot of each hit Abdul Ghani.
Initially a case under section 307/149/148, P.P.C. Was registered on 17-8-1986. Similarly, as the accused party was also injured, so on the complaint of Ghulam Ahmad, a case under sections 307/149 and 148, P.P.C. Was also registered against the complainant party. Abdul Ghani injured died on 25-8-1986, in General Hospital, Lahore, on 25-8-1986, therefore, the offence was converted to one under section 302, P.P.C.
3. The case was firstly investigated by the local police. Thereafter, 'the investigation of this case was entrusted to Anwarul Haq D.S.P., who declared Akhtar and Rauf respondents as innocent. Rauf was got discharged, whereas Akhtar respondent was placed in column No.2 of the challan.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid finding of the D.S.P. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents, which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat, who as stated above vide his judgment, acquitted the respondents. Hence, the present petition for Special Leave to Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has faintly pressed the petition against Akhtar son of Abdul Malik and Khan Muhammad, but seriously challenged the acquittal of Akhtar and Rauf sons of Ahmad Khan, on the ground that there is no background of enmity between the parties. Abdul Ghani deceased being the Imam of the mosque and an elderly man could not use filthy language on the loudspeaker, hence there was no justification for the accused party to attack him. The injuries suffered by the members of the accused party have been properly explained in the F.I.R.
Itself as it has been stated that Muhammad Aslam also fired 2/3 shots in self-defence. He submitted that the finding of the learned trial Judge that there was panic in the village which resulted into open firing is based on gross misreading of evidence and even the accused persons have not taken up the plea that they have not caused injuries to the complainant party, but in spite of that the learned Judge gave them the benefit of doubt. The finding of the trial Court is based on misreading of medical evidence as the two injuries sustained by Abdul Ghani deceased fully support the prosecution version.
5. After hearing the learned counsel at length, I find that the trial Court has given very cogent and valid reasons for coming to the conclusion that no case for conviction is made out. Learned counsel has failed to point out any misreading o evidence. Anwar-ul-Haq D.S.P., (C.W.1) has categorically stated that there was firing at random in which the accused party also received injuries, which have been suppressed in the F.I.R. As well as in the complaint. The finding of acquittal is not based on misreading of evidence hence no miscarriage of justice has taken place. This petition is without any merits and is dismissed in limine.