' Muhammad Iqbal alias Javaid and Zulfiqar sons of Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Arif were tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, in case F.I.R. No,,209, dated 22-11-1982, under section 302/307/34, P.P.C., Police Station Kuthiala Sheikhan, District Gujrat, relating to murder of Rehmat Khan, and causing of injuries to Ghulam Sabbir complainant, Liaqat P.W. And Mst. Ruqayya Bibi. After conclusion of trial, Muhammad Iqbal and Zulfiqar were convicted under section 304-I, P.P.C. And were awarded ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs,5,000 each, in default of payment of which, the convicts were to undergo six months simple imprisonment further. Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Arif, however, were acquitted vide judgment, dated 1-4-1985, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat.
2. The occurrence took place at about "Asser" prayers time on 27-11-1982 in the area of Chak No,,12, located six miles away from Police Station Kuthiala Sheikhan. According to Ghulam Shabbir complainant, he alongwith his father Rehmat Khan, Liaqat Ali and his wife were returning to their house after threshing the paddy belonging to one Ghulam Nabi, and when they reached near the house of one Mirza, the accused were lying in wait for them. Muhammad Ashraf carried a stick while Zulfiqar, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Arif were armed with knives. The accused attacked the complainant party. Muhammad Iqbal accused gave knife blow near the neck of Rehmat Khan. Zulfiqar accused inflicted a knife blow to the left flank of Rehmat Khan who fell on the ground. Liaqat Ali tried to snatch knife from the hands of Muhammad Iqbal who received injuries on his hand. Muhammad Arif accused inflicted blow to the back of Liaqat P.W. Mst. Ruqayya Bibi intervened and received knife blow at the hands of Muhammad Arif. Muhammad Ashraf accused gave a stick blow to the head of Ghulam Shabbir complainant. Ghulam Shabbir complainant gave sickle blow to Javed Iqbal and Zulfiqar in order to save Rehmat Khan. Sher Muhammad also witnessed the occurrence.
3. Muhammad Hussain, Sub-Inspector, was present in Chak No,,51- Mund, when the complainant approached him and reported the matter to him, whereafter the criminal case was registered at Police Station Kuthiala Sheikhan.
4. Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Ashraf were declared innocent after investigation of the case.
Muhammad Iqbal and Zulfiqar were challenged to Court. However, the learned trial Court summoned all the four accused to face trial, where the accused were charge-sheeted on 19-7- 1984 for offences under section 302/307/34, P.P.C.
5. Dr. Nazir Ahmad (P.W.1) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rehmat Khan and found 2 penetrating incised wounds on his body. Injury No,,1 was 3 x 1 c.m. x going deep into the chest above left clavicle. Injury No,,2 was 3 x 1 c.m. x going into abdomen and it had deeply cut the spleen. The injuries were ante mortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The duration between death and infliction of injuries was given as half an hour.
6. Dr. Fayyaz Ahmad P.W.9 medically examined Ghulam Shabbir and noted the following injury on his person:--
(1) An incised wound 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. On the occipital region of head.
' The Medical Officer found the following injuries on the person of Liaqat:--
(1) An incised wound 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/4 c.m. On the back near mid line on left side about 6 c.m. Below spinal prominence.
(2) An abrasion 1 x 1/4 c.m. On the junction of right thumb and index finger.
' The medical examination of Mst. Ruqayya wife of Liaqat Ali reveals the following injuries:--
(1) An incised wound 1/4 x 1/2 x 1/4 c.m. On the right side of forehead. (2)' Right black eye with chamois. Vision all right, can open her right eye. Mst. Ruqayya Bibi, however, had not appeared as prosecution witness.
7. Mst. Nasreen Bibi P.W.5 deposed about the motive. Ghulam Shabbir P.W.6, the complainant, and Liaqat P.W.7 and Sher Muhammad P.W.8 supported the prosecution case as given in the first information report. The rest of the prosecution evidence is of formal character.
8. Muhammad Iqbal in his examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. Took up the stand that Liaqat P.W.
Attacked him and his grandfather Noor Hassan due to damaging of the crop, and that Liaqat Ali had injured Iqbal whereafter he snatched knife from his hand, inflicted blows to Rehmat Khan deceased himself in exercise of right of private defence. Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Arif claimed that they were not present at the spot.
9. Learned trial Court after conclusion of the trial came to the conclusion that Muhammad Iqbal and Zulfiqar had committed the offence but the same was culpable homicide not amounting to murder and that the offence was committed without pre-meditation. The accused were, consequently, convicted under section 304-I, P.P.C. And awarded ten years rigorous imprisonment.
10. Muhammad Iqbal and Zulfiqar filed Criminal Appeal No,,271 of 1985, Ghulam Shabbir, complainant, filed Criminal Revision No,,715 of 1985, against acquittal of Muhammad Ashraf and Arif and for enhancement of sentence awarded to convicts. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard today.
11. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution failed to prove the motive and if the motive was kept out of consideration then there was no grievance for the appellants to have attacked the complainant party. It was submitted that Muhammad Iqbal was injured during the incident and number of injuries on his person abundantly showed that the accused was aggressed upon and that if he was armed with a knife, he could not have received injures. It was argued that the case of the prosecution was found false to the extent of two of the accused which showed that the complainant had the motivation to falsely involve innocent persons in the case as well. It was submitted that Zulfiqar was a school teacher and he did not take part in the incident and was implicated in the case by assigning an artificial role. It was submitted that number of injuries on the complainant Tarty was much smaller and most of the injuries were insignificant and the complainant party was not aggressed upon. It was argued that the prosecution case was found suspect by the trial Court even and the case against the appellants was not free from doubt and the defence version appeared to be more probabld than the prosecution story. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand contended that the complainant party were poor menials and they could not have attacked a cultivator and that the version of the prosecution was a truthful and natural account of the incident. It was submitted that Muhammad Iqbal felt insulted after he was beaten up by the deceased and the complainant and then they were returning from the fields after doing manual labour, they were attacked by all the accused and it was a pre-meditated attack and learned trial Court had erred in taking a different view. A prayer was made for enhancement of sentence awarded to convicts-appellants and for setting aside of acquittal of Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Arif.
12. According to prosecution, the motive for the incident was that Mst. Nasreen, daughter of Sher Muhammad P.W.5, was present at well of Ghulam Nabi when Muhammad Iqbal cut a nasty joke and on the complaint made by Mst. Nasreen Bibi, Muhammad Iqbal was belaboured when he had gone towards the house of the complainant and that in order to avenge that insult, Muhammad Iqbal, his brother, his father and Muhammad Arif attacked Rehmat Khan and Ghulam Shabbir complainant when they were returning from fields. Mst. Nasreen appeared as P.W.5 to support the motive incident. She admitted in her statement that well of Ghulam Nabi did not exist, therefore, her presence at any particular well .a few days before the occurrence or cutting of joke or causing of insult to her would go unsubstantiated. The story of giving kicks and fists blows to Muhammad Iqbal by Rehmat Khan and Ghulam Shabbir, a day before the occurrence, appears to be an invented story. Sher Muhammad or other members of his family had not reacted after the alleged insult caused to Mst. Nasreen. Rehmat Khan apparently had no reason to have given beating to Muhammad Iqbal. Rehmat Khan deceased and Ghulam Shabbir were menials while Muhammad Iqbal was cultivator and if Muhammad Iqbal was given thrashing by menials, the savage ethical code followed in rural society would have invited a serious backlash from cultivators. This, of course, did not happen, which is a fair indication of the fact that story about the causing of insult to Mst. Nasreen or stated reaction of complainant party were introduced in the case only to provide a motive for pre-meditated attack. From an overall view of the case, it appears that the complainant party was working in the fields and Muhammad Iqbal, who was a young person of about 20 years of age, had misbehaved in same manner due to which the parties had quarrelled with one another and the brawl resulted in to causing of injuries to both the parties.
13. Only Muhammad Iqbal was injured during the incident and it has been explained by Ghulam Shabbir that he gave blows with one of the sickles being carried by him in order to save Rehmat Khan who was earlier attacked by Muhammad Iqbal and Zulfiqar. Zulfiqar was not injured in the scuffle while Iqbal had as many as 5 incised wounds on his person. One of the injuries went deep into chest cavity and was declared a grievous injury. At the time of medical examination, he was found anaemic and had difficulty in breathing. In case Muhammad Iqbal was accompanied by other accused such as his brother or his father, it would not have been possible for the complainant to have inflicted a large number of blows to Muhammad Iqbal particularly when he carried a knife as well. The place of occurrence and the manner in which Muhammad Iqbal received injuries show that he was all alone at the time of occurrence. The complainant party according to their showing were much larger in number and Muhammad Iqbal could not have launched an attack at Rehmat Khan. This aspect of the matter if viewed in proper perspective would lead to an inference that Muhammad Iqbal was driven by the circumstances to have reacted the matter, after he was attacked. The absence of motive on the part of Muhammad Iqbal or absence of enmity between the parties obviated the possibility of a pitched battle between the parties. Since the triggering event has not been proved, it is difficult to ascertain from the present position of the record as to which party had initiated the attack. Certain aspects of the matter have been found to be suspect by the learned trial Court, as well.
14. The prosecution case for lack of motive and for the reason that a larger number of people, were involved in the case, is found to be suspect. The possibility of defence version being probable is very much there. The ambience of the case supports the defence version as well that the incident took place out of sudden and over some trivial matter which according to defence was damaging of crop by the cattle. Presence of Zulfiqar at the spot was not proved. In the incidents of like nature, most of the participants are likely to receive some sort of injuries during the brawl. Zulfiqar could not have come out unscathed from the scuffle in case of his participation therein.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal submitted by the appellants is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to them is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge for which they were convicted. The revision petition has been found to be without any merit. Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Arif were acquitted rightly by the learned trial Court as the prosecution had miserably failed to make out any case against them. The revision petition, consequently, is dismissed.