The facts leading to the filing of this Criminal Revision are that petitioner Imanat Ali had got a case registered with Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura, for offences under section 302/34/109, P.P.C.
Against respondents Waris Ali and Muhammad Siddiq with another Barkat on 11-6--1977. The case came up for trial before an Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, who, vide his judgment, dated 18-12-1978 acquitted all the accused. The petitioner challenges the acquittal of the respondents through the revision in hand.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution had produced the ocular account which was held by the learned trial Court to be trustworthy, yet it was not relied upon and the respondents were given the benefit of doubt. Submitted that the learned trial Court had erred in law by holding that the witnesses were chance witnesses. According to him, it has come on record that they lived in the same street where the occurrence had taken place thereby they could not possibly be chance witnesses. Submitted that there has been a grave misreading of evidence, which resulted in the acquittal of the respondents. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. According to him, the learned trial Court had rightly ruled out of consideration the statements of the witnesses, because there were inherent defects. Argued that even the place of occurrence could not be determined because the blood-stained earth secured from the spot, no opinion could be given regarding its origin, because it had disintegrated. Argued that the post-mortem report was directly in conflict with the ocular account and, is such circumstances, the eye-witnesses could not be relied upon unless corroborated by some other independent evidence, which was not available.
3. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence as well as some portions of the judgment with their assistance. I have noticed that the learned trial Court while giving the benefit of doubt held the prosecution story doubtful for the reasons that the eye- witnesses were closely related and were chance witnesses. In this regard it has come in the evidence that the deceased while going towards his house had passed in front of the Haveli of the respondents where they did not choose to attack him but he was attacked in the most thickly populated area of the village which was surrounded by houses. It was further held that not even a single witness from any of the houses was produced by the prosecution as a witness who could have been most natural and trustworthy. It was also held that the occurrence took place at 6-00 in the evening and at that time most of the men-folk would be in their houses. I have noticed that the witnesses did not live where the occurrence took place, but their houses were at some distance, and the explanation given by them about their presence at the spot is not very convincing. , As far as the medical evidence is concerned. Dr. Manzoor Hussain Kazi, P.W.7, had conducted the post-mortem examination on 12-6-1977 at 2 p.m. It is in evidence that deceased Taj Din had expired on 11-6-1977 at 6-45 p.m. The doctor had noticed that the stomach contained semi- digested food, and large intestine contained fiscal matter. He had further opined that the death had occurred immediately after receiving the injuries, and time between death and the post- mortem examination was 48 hours. In cross-examination, the doctor stated that according to the contents of semi-digested food the deceased must have taken his meal one or one and a half hour before his death. He further stated that the duration of injuries on the person of the deceased was certainly beyond 24 hours. He also stated that the minimum period of injuries on the person of Taj Din deceased could be 36 hours. I have noticed that the occurrence took place on 11-6-1977 and the deceased had died at 6-45 p.m. In these circumstances, keeping in view the evidence of the doctor, the prosecution story becomes extremely doubtful because the occurrence would have taken place at 10 at night. One Bodi, P.W.6 in evidence stated that the accused persons were arrested on the day of occurrence and on the following day they got recovered blood-stained daggers, whereas, according to the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the accused were not arrested on the day of the occurrence and they got recovered the weapons of offence on 24-6- 1977. This discrepancy also casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, I have also noticed that all the witnesses had admitted their close relationships with the deceased. While admitting their close relationship with the deceased, they stated that Imanat Ali after the occurrence went to the police station for the registration of the case and the other witnesses went home leaving the deceased unattended. The conduct of the witnesses is extremely unnatural and unbelievable. If they had seen the deceased being done to death, they should have done something to prevent the assailants from attacking him, which was not done. Thereafter, it should have natural reaction on their part to attend to the injured and make every possible effort to save his life, but nothing of this sort was done; instead they became unconcerned towards the whole incident leaving the injured unattended in the lane.
For what has been discussed above and after going through the judgment impugned, I find no merit in the revision which is, accordingly dismissed.
H.B.T./1-5/L