' Muhammad Latif, etc. Respondents were acquitted of the charge under section 452/505/325/34, P.P.C. By Magistrate 1st Class, Sialkot vide judgment, dated 27-12-1990. This is an appeal under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. Against the same.
2. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record appreciated with their help.
3. The occurrence took place at 1-00 p.m. On 17-9-1988. F.I.R. (Exh.P.C.) was lodged by Mst. Surraya Begum, complainant (P.W.1) on 19-9-1988 at 10-05 p.m. According to the F.I.R. The complainant was living in a house which was joint of her husband Muhammad Alam and his brother Muhammad Latif. A separating wall had been set up. Muhammad Latif had rented out his portion to tenants who were not of good character. The daughters of the complainant were grown up. So, she asked Muhammad Latif to get the house vacated. The version goes on that on the day of occurrence at about 8/9 a.m. Muhammad Latif came to her and they talked over the vacation of the house. The talk heated up, they exchanged hot words and Muhammad Latif left throwing threats. At 1-00 p.m.
Muhammad Latif himself with a Danda, his son Yousaf with a brick, the other son Younas with a Danda scaled over the intervening wall and assaulted. Latif gave the Hudge upon her mouth. Her tooth was broken and she started bleeding. Yousaf gave a brick blow on the left arm when her sister Mst. Zubaida (P.W.3) came forward to rescue her. Younas gave a Sota blow. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Javaid and Muhammad Akram (P W.2).
4. Before lodging the F.I.R. The complainant had moved an application (Exh.PA) to S.P. Of the District in which the details were a bit different.
5. The case was cancelled and after the cancellation report, dated 27-9-1988, private complaint (Exh.P.B.) was moved on 11-10-1988. According to this complaint at 1-00 p.m. Latif and his son Younas and Ashfaq with Dandas and Yousaf with a brick entered her house abusing. She was injured as well as her sister Mst. Zubaida (P.W3). The occurrence was witnessed by Abdul Aziz, Muhammad Javaid and Muhammad Akram P.Ws.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions of section 367, Cr.P.C. Had been violated inasmuch as acquittal under section 325, P.P.C. Had been recorded, nothing had been said with respect to the charge under section 452/506/34, P.P.C. And in any case, the evidence had not been properly appreciated. While going through the judgment delivered by the learned Magistrate one can easily say that whole of the prosecution case was not concluded to be proved though while recording acquittal only section 325, P.P.C. Was mentioned. The objection is too technical one.
7. According to the F.I.R. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Javaid, Muhammad Akram P.Ws. But when the complaint was filed Abdul Aziz was further introduced. According to the application moved to the S.P. (Exh.PA.) the occurrence was witnessed by Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Javaid. In it Akram was omitted. From the statements of Mst. Surraya, Muhammad Akram and Mst. Zubaida (P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3) it appears that the complainant and the respondents/accused were not pulling on well and had disputes. Furthermore the respondents were firstly charged under section 452/506/34, P.P.C. The charge under section 325, P.P.C. Was also added on 12-3-1990 whereafter the witnesses were again recalled and examined. The trial has been a lengthy one. Judgment was announced on 2742-1990. As per the medical evidence provided by Dr. Muhammad Younas (P.W.5) and Dr. Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.6) the complainant had one grievous injury as her tooth was dislocated. She is lady of about 40 years. The possibility that the tooth was dislocated only by fist blow also cannot be entirely ruled out. If any sentence was called for, the protracted trial would suffice.
8. In the circumstances no ground for accepting the appeal which is dismissed.
Acquittal upheld.