' The State had filed the present criminal appeal against the acquittal of the respondents/accused made by learned Civil Judge 1st Class/Magistrate Section 30, Sadiqabad on 8-6-1985 in a case registered under section 307/326, P.P.C. At Police Station Kot Sabzal vide F.I.R. Exh.PA./1.
2. Briefly, the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. Was that P.W.1, Muhammad Iqbal complainant on 20-1-1984 made a statement at 8-00 p.m. In Civil Hospital, Sanjerpur before Shahbaz Hussain, A.S.I. (P.W.3), who sent the complaint Exh.PA. To the police station where F.I.R.
Exh.PA./1 was recorded on its basis by Ahmad Bakhsh, Head Constable, P.W.5 alleging therein that on 20-1-1984, he was going towards the fields to irrigate the same on his motorcycle and while returning at about 5-00 p.m. Reached near agricultural land of Ibrahim Fauji, all the respondents made murderous assault on him. Respondent No,1, Sardar Muhammad was armed with Chhuri whereas the other respondents/accused were armed with Sotis. The respondents started giving blows to the complainant with their respective weapons. P.W.1, ran away but was chased, apprehended and caught hold by the respondents. P.W.1 was felled down on the ground.
Respondents Nos.2 to 4 (Ghulam Muhammad, Yaseen and Khandu) caught hold of P.W.1 and Sardar Muhammad, respondent chopped off his nose with Chhuri. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Suleman P.W.2 and Ghulam Muhammad P.W. (given up).
3. The motive behind was that Khundu, respondent had suspicion that P.W.1 had illicit relations with his wife Mst. Khanzadi (D.W.1). P.W.1 had tried to prove his innocence but was not believed.
4. The respondents were challaned and sent up for trial. They were charged under sections 326/34 and 307/34, P.P.C. To which they denied and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution had examined five P.Ws. In all to substantiate its case. P.W.1, complainant narrated the facts mentioned by him in his statement Exh.PA. On the basis of which F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 was recorded. P.W.2, Muhammad Suleman, sister's husband of P.W.1 corroborated the statement of P.W.1 to the extent that when he reached near the place of occurrence, the accused/respondents had already cut the nose of P.W.1 Muhammad Iqbal and thereafter witnessed the occurrence.
Sardar Muhammad, respondent was armed with Chhuri whereas the three others were armed with Sotis. He had beseached the respondents not to kill the complainant. At first he stated that weapons of offence were not taken into possession by the police but thereafter stated that Sardar Muhammad, respondent had produced Chhuri whereas the other respondents had produced Sotis which were secured vide memos. Exhs.P.B. To P.E.
6. P.W.3, Shahbaz Hussain, A.S.I. Had recorded Exh.PA., the statement of the complainant in the hospital and sent the same to the police station. He recorded the statements of P.Ws. The respondents had appeared before him themselves. Sardar Muhammad, respondent is alleged to have produced Chhuri which was secured by him vide memo. Exh.P.B. Whereas the other respondents produced Sotis which were secured vide memos. Exhs.P.C. To P.E.
7. P.W.4, Dr. Abdur Razzaq had medically examined P.W.1, complainant and found the following injuries on his person:--
(1) The nose is cut off. The wound extends down on to the upper lip of which middle part measuring about 3/4" is also cut off. Severe bleeding was going on when he was brought to the hospital.
(2) A lacerated wound 2" x 1/4" x 1/4" obliquely on the head behind the left pinna.
(3) A lacerated bleeding wound 1-3/4" x 1/4" scalp deep vertically on the left part of head about 4" about the left pinna.
(4) A lacerated wound 1-1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the occipital part of head a bit to the right.
(5) A lacerated wound 1-1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" vertically on the right part of head about 3" above the right pinna.
(6) Multiple contusions intermingle one another on the whole back.
(7) An abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the back of left shoulder.
(8) An abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the back of right shoulder.
(9) An abrasion 3" x 1/2" on the outerside of right forearm about 3" distle to elbow.
(10) Right hand dorsal side is swollen.
(11) Left ankle is swollen and painful.
' The doctor had opined injury No,1 to be grievous whereas injuries Nos.3, 4 and 5 were kept under observation and others were declared as simple. Injury No,1 was caused with sharp-edged weapon i,e. With blunt weapon. The medico-legal report is Exh.P.F./1.
8. The respondents when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution case against them and had stated that they were innocent excepting, respondent Khandu who has stated that he had injured the complainant on sudden provocation and had committed no offence. The respondents had denied the recoveries of weapons of offence at their instance and excepting Khandu, respondent, none produced defence evidence.
9. D.W.1, Mst. Khanzadi, wife of Khandu, respondent had stated that the complainant had been compelling her for developing illicit relations and three years earlier to the present occurrence, a case was registered under section 354, P.P.C. On her complaint which was pending and on the relevant day she was cutting grass when complainant tried to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with her and on her hue and cry, her husband Khandu reached there and had stated that he had earlier cautioned P.W.1 and due to sudden provocation had cut the nose of the complainant, P.W.1 with the knife. D.W.1 further stated that the nose of P.W.1 was chopped off when he was trying to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with her. P.W.1 was not commanding good reputation and used to tease the ladies and was Kala of the Baradari.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. P.Ws.1 and 2 are closely related to each other i,e. Sister of P.W.1 is married to P.W.2 whereas Ghulam Muhammad P.W.
(given up) was real uncle of P.W.1. No doubt, P.W.1 narrated the facts mentioned by him in F.I.R.
Exh.PA./1 and during cross-examination had stated that a case under section 354, P.P.C. Was registered against him on the complaint of the wife of Khandu, respondent. The respondents are related inter se. He refuted the suggestion that Mst. Khanzadi D.W.1, wife of the respondent/accused was cutting the grass and finding her alone, he forcibly took her in the Sarsoon field and tried to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with her and on her hue and cry, Khundu, respondent reached and chopped off his nose. He further stated that in case under section 354, P.P.C. Registered against him, Rab Nawaz and Faqir Muhammad were the P.Ws. Rab Nawaz P.W. Was sister's husband of Sardar Muhammad, respondent and Faqir Muhammad P.W. Was paternal-uncle of Sardar Muhammad, respondent. P.W.2, during cross-examination had specifically stated that a dispute was going on between Ghulam Muhammad, Sardar respondents and the complainant and the nose of the complainant had already been chopped off. It has been stated by P.W.1 that a case was already pending against him registered under section 354, Cr.P.C. On the complaint of Mst. Khanzadi (D.W.1), wife of respondent, Khandu. The respondents are related inter se. Sardar and Ghulam Muhammad P.Ws. Are related to Rab Nawaz, respondent. P.W. Ghulam Muhammad real paternal- uncle of P.W.1 was given up by the prosecution and had not been produced. The presumption is that if he had been produced, he would not have supported the prosecution version. Sardar Muhammad, Ghulam Muhammad and Yaseen, respondents are not related to Khandu, respondent and as well as to D.W.1, Mst. Khanzadi. The respondent Khandu, had raised a specific plea that he had chopped off the nose of P.W.1 on grave and sudden provocation as he had seen his wife, D.W.1 being laid down on the ground and P.W.1 was going to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with her. Placing the case of respondent/accused with juxtaposition with that of the prosecution, I am of the considered view that the evidence on record and the circumstances appearing in the case support the plea raised by Khandu, respondent. No one would like to bring his wife in the witness-box as defence witness as is in the present case. It has been brought on record that a case under section 354, P.P.C. Was already registered against P.W.1 on the complaint of Mst. Khanzadi D.W.1, wife of Khandu.
Respondent Khundu had satisfactorily explained the plea raised by him. The plea raised by the respondents is spelt out from the evidence on record and the circumstances appearing in the case.
11. Pursuant to the above discussion, I am of the considered view that no exception can be taken to the acquittal of the respondents accused.
12. Resultantly, the appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed.