' A private complaint titled Mst. Sahib Khatoon v. Muhammad Hussain and 8 others was filed on 9- 9-1981 by Mst. Sahib Khatoon, appellant herein in the Court of Magistrate Section 30, Shahpur District Sargodha under section 307/506/452/148/149, P.P.C. For an occurrence which took place on 5-8-1991 at about 4-00 p.m. In the house of the appellant, within the area of Mauza Kot Chugatta Tehsil Shahpur District Sargodha, against Muhammad Hussain, Ata Muhammad, Liaquat, Mehmood, Nazar Muhammad, Asghar Ali, Mst. Maqboolan and Mst. Manzooran.
2. On the presentation of the private complaint, learned trial Court recorded the preliminary evidence of two witnesses namely Mst. Sahib Khatoon complainant and Mst. Aslam Khatoon injured P.W. On 12-9-1981, whereas the evidence of Ghaus Muhammad was recorded on 16-9-1981.
Learned trial Court after recording the preliminary evidence, found the case, prima facie, made out under section 324/452/34, P.P.C. Against Muhammad Hussain son of Ramzan and Mst. Manzooran wife of Liaquat Ali who were summoned to face the trial vide order, dated 7-10-1981. No revision was preferred against the order, dated 7-10-1981 in any Court of competent jurisdiction and the same attained finality. The trial Court proceeded with the matter. The formal charge was framed on 20- 3-1982 and the evidence was summoned.
3. The complainant/appellant to prove her case produced as many as five witnesses. Sahib Khatoon P.W.1 appeared and reiterated the version she had given in the complaint and also gave the details of the injuries sustained by herself or the witnesses at the hands of the accused persons. Mst. Razia P.W.2 deposed that she was present in her house when the accused armed with their respective weapons .Entered the house and started abusing, She also narrated the details of the injuries inflicted by the accused persons. Ghaus Muhammad (P.W.3) stated that he was present in the village in connection with his labour and witnessed the occurrence, he gave the details of the occurrence. Aslam Khatoon, (P.W.4), appeared and also gave the details of the ocular account of the incident and explained the injuries suffered by the witnesses. Dr. Muhammad Ramzan, (P.W.5), Medical Officer, Radhan, Tehsil Shahpur District Sargodha, who had medically examined Sahib Khatoon, Razia and Aslam Khatoon on 5-8-1981, gave the details of injuries as below:-- ' Sahib Khatoon
(1) An incised wound 3/4 x 1/3" x muscle deep upon the frontal part of the right side of the head, near roots of hair, about 2-1/2" above the right eyebrow 5" in front of right ear. Profuse bleeding from the wound is there.
(2) An abrasion mark 1" x 1/3", just near to the right eye at its outer angle.
(3) Multiple contusion mark upon her back and she complains of severe pain at her back.
(4) She complains of pain at roots of hairs of head and some hair are torn. Razia
(1) A contused swelling which is differed and very much touch upon the abdomen round about the umbilicus.
(2) An incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep upon the left middle finger between the middle and listed phallic. There is bleeding from the wound.
(3) There are small abrasion marks upon both knee joints.
(4) She complains of pain at the roots of hairs of head. Some hairs are torn.
' Aslam Khatoon
(1) Swelling, contusion/abrasion marks upon the right forearm.
(2) She complains of paid upon the back of neck and upon upper part of back of chest.
(3) She also complains of pain upon the roots of hair of head. Some hair are torn.
4. At the conclusion of the evidence of the complainant party the same was put to the accused persons and their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Were recorded. The allegations leveled against them were refuted. They professed innocence. Nobody had entered appearance to make statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In disproof of the allegations.
5. The accused persons vide order, dated 23-7-1986 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Shahpur District Sargodha were acquitted of the charge. Hence this appeal.
6. Special Leave to Appeal was granted vide order dated 1-11-1986. Notice was issued to the respondents, who have made their representation through Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, Advocate.
7. A few days before the occurrence, the husband of the complainant refused to work without having any reward of it and that too under coercion, whereupon they were forced to vacate the residential Ahata of Muhammad Nawaz Khan, the landlord, immediately. The husband of the complainant resisted. Muhammad Nawaz Khan was misled by his Manager who got a false case registered at serial No,242/81, dated 5-8-1981 under section 13 of Arms Ordinance XX of 1965, with Police Station Sahiwal District Sargodha against Muhammad Hayat son of Sultan Mahmood who was arrested. The other male members of her family were made to sit in the police station. On the same day i,e, 5-8-1981 at about 4-00 p.m. In the absence of all the male members, Mst. Maqboolan and Mst. Manzooran armed with knife entered into the complainant's house and started abusing them. Meanwhile, Muhammad Hussain, Ata Muhammad, Liaquat, Mahmood, Nazar Muhammad, Akhtar Ali armed with Sotas and knives followed them and on the exhortation of respondent No,4, Mahmood, the above said accused inflicted injuries on the person of Mst. Sahib, Razia, and Aslam Khatoon with their respective weapons. , The occurrence was witnessed by Ghaus Muhammad and Muhammad Ramzan. During the scuffle, Muhammad Hussain and Manzooran also suffered injuries at the hands of their co-accused. The complainant tried her level best to get the case registered against the assailants, but she could not succeed. The alleged assailants succeeded to get a case F.I.R. No,125/81, dated 5-8-1981, registered under section 307/34, P.P.C. With Police Station Sahiwal, District Sargodha, at the instance of Ata Muhammad against the complainant party.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued his case on the ground that the learned trial Court without applying its judicious mind and appreciating the evidence in its true perspective, has illegally made an order for acquittal of the respondents. The learned trial Court did not take into consideration the details of injuries suffered by the complainant party and also did not even discuss it. The injuries sustained by Mst. Sahib Khatoon on her head cannot, at all, be self-suffered.
The ocular account is fully in consonance with the medical evidence, but the learned trial Court has not given any cogent reasons to discard it. The minor contradictions should not have any effect upon the merits of the case. Minor contradictions in evidence are but natural. Learned trial Court committed an error while forming an opinion. The case of the complainant is fully proved and in view of the offence committed, the respondents are liable to be sentenced and prays for the acceptance of the appeal.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents emphatically argued that the occurrence took place in the house of the complainant and F.I.R. No,144 Exh.DA. Was registered against Manzoor Hussain, Razia, Sahib Khatoon and Ghulam Hussain, who after the usual investigation were sent to face the trial and Manzoor Hussain vide judgment, dated 23-74986 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30 was convicted under section 308, P.P.C. And was sentenced two years' R.I. All others were acquitted while giving them benefit of doubt. Further, argued that the convict filed an appeal and the complainant filed revision petition for the enhancement of the sentence and against the acquittal of other accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide his judgment, dated 25-5-1991 remanded the case for fresh decision. The Magistrate Section 30 vide his judgment, dated 15-10-1991 while deciding the case acquitted Ghulam Hussain and others were sentenced already undergone with fine of Rs,1,000 each. The appeal and revision petition were preferred against this order by the respective parties but were dismissed vide order, dated 19-2-1994. Vehemently argued that the complaint was filed with the delay of one month and four days and no plausible explanation was given. The eye- witnesses are either interested or inimical and no independent witness was produced to corroborate the testimony of the interested and inimical 'witnesses. Ghulam Ghaus's presence was unnatural and unbelievable. He is not even the resident of the village. Learned counsel referred Exh.D.C. Statement of the doctor and Exh.D.H. The M.L.R. Of Muhammad Hussain injured who suffered as many as five injuries caused by sharp-edged weapon and argued that these injuries were not explained by the complainant in her complaint. The suppression of the injuries and of facts seriously damaged the case of the appellant and on the basis of the testimony of such like witness no conviction could be recorded. Lastly he argued that the motive had accrued to the complainant party for mounting a murderous attack on the respondents. He pointed out material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at full length and have also given my anxious consideration to the facts of the case. The record has also been examined with their assistance.
11. Keeping in view the circumstances of this case, it is abundantly clear that it was a case of two versions, one brought forward by the complainant of the private criminal complaint regarding the place of occurrence and suffering of injuries at the hands of the respondents, the other one was brought forward by the complainant of the F.I.R. Exh.DA. Showing the place of occurrence other than pointed out by the appellant herein. The F.I.R. Exh.DA. Was lodged on 6-8-1981 at about 1-15 p.m.
Whereas occurrence took place on 5-8-1981 at about evening time. During the investigation challan was submitted against Ghulam Hussain, Manzoor Hussain, Mst. Sahib Khatoon, Razia and on the conclusion of the trial Ghulam Hussain was acquitted and others were sentenced. It means that the place of occurrence was established through evidence in the Court and was proved that the appellant party mounted a murderous attack on the respondents at the time when they were present in their house. The motive attributed was also proved because the respondents have conveyed a secret information to the police and illicit arm was recovered from Muhammad Hayat and the case was registered against him. There was no occasion arose and no motivating force was available to launch a murderous attack on the complainant party. On the other hand, a private criminal complaint was filed on 9-9-1981 with the unexplained delay of one month and four days for an occurrence which took place on 5-8-1981. Such a delay itself casts a very serious doubt upon the case of the appellant coupled with the non-production of independent witnesses. The only point in this case is whether Ghaus Muhammad (P.W.3) was present at the place of occurrence? Ghulam Ghaus in his statement stated that he had engaged himself in netting the bed and in connection with this he was present in the village. He saw that Mst. Maqboolan and Mst.
Manzooran holding knits in their hands had entered in the house of the appellant and started abusing. But he admitted that he had visited the village Kot Chugutta for the first time in his life. If this is taken as such then how he came to know the names of the ladies as being stranger, particularly when he stated very clearly that he did not know the names of the accused and witnesses previously. It appears that he was tutored after filing the complaint. The evidence of such like witness cannot be made basis to record the conviction unless his testimony is corroborated by strong and independent evidence which is not forthcoming in this case. Muhammad Ramzan, another witness was cited in the complaint who could he the independent witness but was not produced during the proceedings of trial and that fact is also indicative of false implication of the respondents. After recording preliminary evidence, the learned trial Court only summoned Mst.
Manzooran and Muhammad Hussain to face the trial under section 452/324/34, P.P.C. This order, dated 7-10-1981 was never challenged before any Court of competent jurisdiction and the same thus attained finality. It means that the complainant/appellant had admitted the innocence of all the respondents except Muhammad Hussain and Mst. Manzooran. The deletion of section 307/506, P.P.C. Was also accepted. This aspect also creates doubt in the mind regarding the correctness of the occurrence and implication of the respondents. Even otherwise there are material contradictions among the statements of the witnesses and deliberate improvements were also made at the time of trial which can never be taken as foundation for conviction.
12. This is an appeal against acquittal and it is fundamental principle of law that unless judgment of the trial Court was perverse or bad and had been complete misreading of evidence and reading in a way which leads to miscarriage of justice or evidence on the file, was such which was completely illegal. The other salutary principle of law is that if on perusal of evidence, any other conclusion could be drawn except the acquittal, then the decision of the trial Court could be taken as perverse. The Court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 417, Cr.P.C. Should be slow always unless it clearly indicates that gross injustice had been done in the dispensation of criminal justice.
13. In view of the discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Court could only come to the conclusion that the accused were not guilty of any offence. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case as a whole and in the background and facts of the case and if the evidence is analyzed after taking into consideration of all aspect of the case it is difficult to observe that the judgment of the trial Court was perverse or was a result of misreading of evidence and the same was stupidity of the trial Court that it had reached any distorted conclusion.
14. I am of the considered view that the learned trial Court could not reach to any other conclusion except to make an order for the acquittal of the respondents.
15. The result of the above said discussion is that the appeal has no force and the same is dismissed.