Muhammad Idrees and his two brothers namely Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Zaheer were tried under section 307/34, P.P.C. On the charge of murderous assault on Shabbir Ahmad P.W.3 on 2-8-1985 near Chowk New Shadbagh, Lahore.
The prosecution case was that on the eventful day at about 6-00 p.m. Muhammad Idrees petitioner and the two acquitted accused launched attack on Shabbir Ahmad P.W.3, and inflicted Chhuri blows on his person. The occurrence was seen by Tauqeer Ahmad P.W.1, Muhammad Ashraf P.W.2 and Shahid Mehmood P.W.7. Dr. Anwar Saeed P.W.6 medically examined Shabbir Ahmad on 2-8-1985. He found an incised wound on the left side of the chest, another incised wound on the left forearm of Shabbir Ahmad P.W. Injury No.1 was declared grievous and the other injury was simple.
Both the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon. Muhammad Iqbal P.W.5, Shahid Mehmood P.W.7 and Shafiq-ud-Din P.W.8 are the witnesses of recovery of Chhuri from the petitioner and the co-accused. However, Shahid Mehmood and Shafiq-ud---Din have not supported the recovery of the weapon.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. He produced Dr. SA.H. Jaffery and Muhammad Ashraf in defence. The doctor stated that on 3-8-1985, he examined Muhammad Ashraf and found one incised wound on his person.
Muhammad Ashraf D.W.2 stated that Shabbir was holding a Chhuri and tried to injure him and when he tried to ward off the attack, he received injuries on his hand. The alarm raised by him attracted Billu. He grappled with Shabbir and during this scuffle, both of them fell down and in this process Shabbir received injuries he stated that the petitioner and the co-accused were not present on the spot at that time. Learned trial Court vide its judgment, dated 19-3-1989 acquitted the co-accused but convicted the petitioner under section 307, P.P.C. And sentenced him to 4 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.5,000, in default thereof six months' R.I. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 14-5-1989.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the eye-witnesses have not been believed to the extent of the two co-accused and as such, the petitioner could not have been convicted without corroboration. No one has appeared for the State.
5. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that Shabbir Ahmad injured, P.W.3, Tauqeer Ahmad P.W.1, Muhammad Ashraf P.W.2 and Shahid Mehmood P.W.7 had involved the petitioner and his two brothers. There were 2 injuries on the person of Shabbir Ahmad but the eye-witnesses not only I named 3 persons but also stated that they had seen all of them giving injuries with Chhuri to Shabbir Ahmad. The trial Court has not acted upon their statements to the extent of 2 co-accused.
The possibility that the injury on chest was falsely attributed to Muhammad Idrees, brother of the 2 acquitted accused cannot be excluded. In any case, the rule of prudence requires independent corroboration of the statement of the eye-witnesses qua the petitioner, which is not available.
For what has been said above, I feel that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. So the revision is accepted and giving him the benefit of doubt, Muhammad Idrees petitioner is acquitted of the charge.