' Ahmad Ali (deceased), the brother-in-law of Ghulam Rasool complainant (P.W.6) was murdered on the night intervening 10/11-6-1979 at his Dera at a distance of one mile from the village Abadi.
Hassan Din etc. Respondents were charge-sheeted and tried for the offence under section 302/436/201/148/149, P.P.C. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, vide his judgment, dated 4-11-1981 acquitted all of them. The same has been called in question in the present revision by the complainant.
2. Ghulam Rasool complainant (P.W.6) made statement (Exh.P.E.) to Ghulam Muhammad, A.S.I.
(P.W.11) on G.T. Road at 2-00 a.m. On 11-6-1979. On its basis formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.E./1) was registered at 2-10 a.m. By Amanullah, M.H.C. (not produced).
3. The version in the F.I.R. Is that Ahmad Ali (deceased) alongwith his wife and children was residing at the Dera in the land of the complainant at a distance of one mile on the South-East of the village Abadi. On the night of occurrence the complainant and his son Munawar Hussain (P.W.7) were irrigating their fields from their tube-well. At about mid-night when the complainant and Munawar Hussain were present in their cattle Haveli alarm was heard from the Easter-side. Munawar Hussain looked over the wall and he observed 11/12 persons coming armed. Munawar Hussain saw near the outer gate of their Haveli in the electric light Hassan Din, Ghulam Rasool, Aslam son of Hayat and Muhammad Aslam Sodai respondents armed with rifles, Muhammad Hayat, Mubarak alias Maqbool, Inayat, Bashir, Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Sharif armed with guns and Abdur Rehman respondent with a pistol. They were proceeding towards the house of Ahmad Ali. Munawar Hussain raised a Lalkara to Ahmad Ali (deceased) to be on guard. On this Ahmad Ali got up and in the meantime Hassan Din, Hayat, Aslam Sodai, Aslam son of Hayat, Sharif, Bashir, Ghulam Rasool, Inayat and Siddiq respondents scaled over the wall raising the Lalkara that they had come of teach a lesson for the purchase of land. Hayat, Hassan Din, Ghulam Rasool, Inayat and Aslam Sodai fired their weapons at Ahmad Ali who started running towards his Kotha.
He entered it and chained from inside. On the alarm of the complainant Munawar Hussain, Bashiran (P.W.8), the wife of the deceased beseached the accused whereupon Hayat and Ghulam Rasool tied the complainant and his son Munawar Hussain's hands behind their back and brought them to the courtyard of the house of occurrence. Bashir, Sharif, Hayat and Ghulam Rasool started guarding them. In the meantime Hassan Din and Inayat knocked at the door. Ahmad Ali did not open it and so it was chained from outside. Sarkandas lying in the courtyard were brought near the door of the Kotha and it was set on fire. Aslam Sodai, Aslam son of Hayat and Inayat went up the roof and started pulling down the roof with the Kassi which they had picked up from the courtyard.
Hassan Din also reached the roof with Sarkandas. The roof was set on fire. From the roof top firing was done by Aslam Sodai and Aslam son of Hayat and in the meantime on the alarm Ibrahim, Siraj Din (P.Ws.4 and 5) reached. Aslam was carrying his licensed gun. They were fired at and Ibrahim also fired. On this the respondents-accused left the scene. The witnesses extinguished the fire but Ahmad Ali was found burnt to death in the Kotha.
4. The motive alleged was that Ahmad Ali (deceased) had entered into an agreement to purchase 8 Acres of land from Ali Ahmad Shah for Rs,40,000 - and had paid Rs,10,000 in advance and obtained possession. This land was being cultivated by Hassan Din and his brother which was on mortgage with them. Hassan Din filed a civil suit respecting this land. As on account of the land dispute there had been a fight between the parties security proceedings were taken against both the parties. Ahmad Ali (deceased) was also involved in a theft case by Hassan Din respondent. Due to all these grudges the deceased had been done to death.
5. The case was investigated by, Ghulam Muhammad, A.S.I. (P.W.11) and Ghulam Muhammad Kalyar, Inspector (P.W.12). The former after recording the statement of the complainant (Exh.P.E.) reached the spot at 4-00 a.m., prepared inquest report (Exh.P.B./2) and injury statement (Exh.P.D.).
The dead body of the deceased was lying in the room and he sent it to the hospital at Sheikhupura.
Half of the room was burnt including the entrance door. The articles and the wheat lying in the Kotha were also burnt. He prepared rough site plan (Exh.P.J.). He recovered a Panjali and a Kassi from the courtyard vide memo. (Exh.P.G.) and the burnt cot and bedding vide memo. (Exh.P.L.). He got prepared site plans (Exh.P.H. And P.H./1) to scale.
6. The investigation was taken over from the A.S.I. By Ghulam Muhammad, Inspector on 11-6-1979.
He arrested all the accused/respondents on 20-6-1979. He admitted in cross-examination that Aslam Sodai accused was found to be in jail at the time of occurrence, Sharif and Siddiq pleaded alibi and their pleas were found to be correct.
7. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was performed by Dr. Manzoor Hussain on 11-6-1979 at 5-00 p.m. The doctor had left for Iraq with no chance of return and so his post-mortem report (Exh.P.B.) was proved by Khalid Mehmood Ahmad, Dispensar (P.W.3).
According to the post-mortem report the limbs were squeezed, contracted and flexed, the attitude of defence posture was visible, larynx, tracheal and bronchial tubes contained sooty particles, there was a line of redness on the dead body demarcating the burnt area from the healthy area of the skin and burns on various parts. From this the doctor concluded that he was burnt to death.
8. Muhammad Sharif, respondent pleaded that he had been falsely involved, he had appeared as a witness against Muhammad Sharif, Sardar Muhammad, the brothers of the complainant in a case under section 325/342/34, P.P.C. In the Court of A.C. Ferozewala. He himself was involved in a false theft case by Sardar Muhammad, the brother of the complainant and was exonerated in investigation. Sardar Muhammad also got him involved in a case under section 325, P.P.C. At Police Station Muridke through Abdul Haq Shah and in it too he was exonerated. He ascribed his involvement to enmity. Hassan Din, respondent pleaded that Hayat, Ghulam Rasool, Inayat, Bashir, Abdur Rehman, Aslam, Mubarak alias Maqbool respondents were related to him and they had litigation over land with the deceased. All ascribed their involvement to enmity.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant, Munawar Hussain and Mst.
Bashiran P.Ws. Were natural witnesses, they have clearly implicated the respondents, the motive part of the story was admitted, the eye-witnesses were corroborated by Ibrahim, Faqir Muhammad and Siraj Din (P.Ws.4, 5 and 9), the medical evidence and so the acquittal was improper. He also asserted that the defence plea has been rejected by the learned trial Judge. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that all the witnesses were inimical and interested, had made innumerable improvements, their statements were contradictory on essential points, the story put forward was unnatural and that it being a night occurrence, the identification was difficult, due to enmity the respondents had been falsely involved. Learned State counsel had no comments but to support the judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge.
10. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and been taken through the statements of the witnesses I think there is no case for interference in revision against the judgment of acquittal. The deceased was living at the Dera while the complainant had his residence in the village Abadi. So, the presence of Ghulam Rasool complainant and his son Munawar Hussain at the spot is a doubtful affair. Faqir Muhammad (P.W.5) admitted in cross-examination that his Dera was about 5/10 Rectangles from the place of occurrence. Ibrahim, Faqir Muhammad and Siraj Din, P.Ws.
Are inter-related and hail from his Dera. It is also in the statements of the eye-witnesses that a Dera of Arains and one other Dera are closer than the Dera of Ibrahim and Faqir Muhammad P.Ws.
But none from the said Deras reached the spot. Hence the reaching of these witnesses at the spot is also a doubtful affair. The case of the witnesses is that the hands of the complainant and Munawar Hussain were tied on their back and they were present in the courtyard of the house of occurrence. It is the case of the eye-witnesses that firing was resorted to in the courtyard as well as from the roof top of the Kotha but there is not a single injury to any person including the deceased or to any cattle from the fire shots. No crime-empty was recovered from anywhere in the courtyard or the roof or the surrounding fields. Mst. Bashiran had to make improvement to say that while firing the crime empties were pocketed by the respondents. Such a statement and that too coming from the mouth of a lady seems to be tutored. She could only name Hassan Din, Hayat, Inayat, Aslam, Sharif, Siddiq respondents and none else. Aslam Sodai was clearly named in the F.I.R. And even in the statements at the trial major role was attributed to him. But when cross-examination was conducted he stated that at the time of occurrence he was in jail. Effort was made to say that one of the culprits had muffled his face. The effort clearly is to make improvement. It is admitted in the cross-examination to the complainant that over the land dispute there had been a fight and cross-cases had been reported. Even recording to the F.I.R. Security proceedings had been initiated between the parties. All the eye-witnesses are, therefore, interested and inimical. They cannot be believed unless corroborated. There is no corroboration, rather there are indications on the record that the net had been cast wide. All the twelve respondents were armed with fire-arms and as pointed out above, there is no trace of any firing at the spot. What seems to have happened is that the assailants whoever they were, their appearance at the spot resulted in the deceased chaining him inside the room and they set the same on fire and left. The deceased expired due to fire burns.
The judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge being not whimsical or not supported by the evidence on record, even if a different view was possible, the same cannot be substituted in revision.
11. For all the above reasons, finding no force in the revision petition, the same stands dismissed.
Revision .