MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.-Murad Shah and 3 others were tried under sections 307/324/34 of the PPC on the charge of murderous assault on Fazal Shah PW 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 PW-1, Akhtar Shah PW-2 and Fazal Shah PW-3 have given the ocular account of occurrence. Fazal Shah PW stated that the petitioner and his companions had launched attack on him and had caused injuries with a hatchet on his person. As far 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 PWs supported him. Dr. Muhammad Mumtaz PW-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 PPC 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. Sesion Judge, Jhang, acquitted the co-accused but while maintaining the conviction of Murad Shah petitioner under section 324 of the PPC, 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.L, 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 the witnesses 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 DW-3. The injuries were not only suppressed in the FIR but have also not been properly explained by the eye-witnesses. In order to give 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 actual. The eye-wetnesses have given evidence with a motive other- than telling the truth, so no reliance can be placed on their evidence.
7. Pursuant to the 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.