' Briefly stated the prosecution case as unfolded by Khuda Dad complainant (P.W.8) in complaint Exh.P.A. Is that on 4-8-1988 at about 9-00 a.m., he alongwith his brothers Wali Dad and Khanzada were ploughing field known as "Thatha" when all of a sudden Ghulam Qasim, Zahoor Ahmad armed with a rifles, Zia armed with a gun, Gulsher armed with a Soti, Said Rasool armed with a hatchet and Muhammad Siddique armed with a hockey emerged there and in furtherance of their common object asked the complainant and his companions as to why they were ploughing their land. His brother Wali Dad replied that they had got land as a result of decision of the Court and they would plough the same. Upon this Ghulam Wasim opened the attack by firing rifle shot hitting Wali Dad on his chest. Zahoor fired a shot hitting Wali Dad below unbilious. Zia then fired with his gun which hit Wali Dad on his right flank. The second shot by Zia hit Wali Dad on his right thigh and then a fire shot was again fired by Zia which hit the complainant on his left elbow. Said Rasool then gave hatchet blow on the head of Wali Dad. Ghlsher and Muhammad Siddique gave Soti and hockey blows to Wali Dad. Ghulam Qasim, Zahoor and Zia fired rifle and gun hitting Wali Dad on different parts of his body. The accused then left the said place raising slogans. Wali Dad injured succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Motive for the occurrence pertains to dispute over land which originally vested in Ghulam Abbas and was purchased by the complainant and others and the same was in their possession. Ghulam. Qasim and others claimed title over the said land and a civil suit was instituted which was decided in favour of the complainant. That the accused bore a grudge for this and had threatened the complainant and other that if they ploughed the land, they should be done to death.
2. On receipt of the information of this occurrence S.-I. Mushtaq Ahmad reached the spot and on the statement of the complainant recorded complaint Exh.P.A. After usual investigation, the accused were sent up to face trial.
3. A charge under sections 148, 307, 149 and 302/34, P.P.C. Was framed against all the .Accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined Nazar Muhammad, H.C. (P.W.1), Rehmat Gul Constable (P.W.2), Dr. Khalid Mehmood Chohan (P.W.3), Muhammad Islam (P.W.4), Qamar Abbas Constable (P.W.5), Shaukat Hussain Constable (P.W.'6), Abdul Khaliq, Patwari (P.W.7), Khuda Dad (P.W.8), Khan Zada (P.W.9), Mushtaq Ahamd, S.-I. (P.W.10), Ishtiaq Ahmad, S.I./S.H.O. (P.W.11) and Dr. Asghar Hameed Qureshi (P.W.12). Thereafter, the learned A.D.A. Produced fire-arm report Exh.P.O., report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.P. And report of Serologist P.Q. And closed the case for prosecution vide his statement, dated 12-6-1990.
5. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Zahoor Ahmad, Muhammad Zia, Ghulam -Qasim, Said Rasool, Muhammad Siddique and Gulsher accused denied the prosecution version and stated that they have been implicated falsely and on account of suspicion due to enmity which had been going on between the parties. None of the accuse: adduced any defence evidence. However, all of them recorded their statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And relied upon their statements which they had made under section 342, Cr.P.C.
6. After going through the evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court acquitted the accused vide judgment, dated 11-2-1991. The complainant/petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed the instant criminal revision.
7. Arguments have been heard and record perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
8. Contention of learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner is that as per contents of complainant Exh.P.A., the complainant Khuda Dad alongwith his brothers Khanzada and Wali Dad (since deceased) were present at the time of occurrence when they were attacked by as many as six accused who were armed with rifles, gun, hatchest, stick and hockey, that a clear-cut motive for launching this attack has been given in the complaint which stands corroborated not only by complainant Khuda Dad (P.W.8) but also by injured eye-witness Khanzada (P.W.9), that ocular evidence stands further corroborated by medical evidence which has come on record through the statement of P.W.3 Dr. Khalid Mehmood Chohan who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased Wali Dad and also examined the injured Khuda Dad and found three injuries on the person of the injured and six injuries on the person of the deceased, that ocular evidence further stands corroborated by evidence of recovery of different weapons from the accused through memos. Exh.P.M., P.J., P.K. And P.L., that all these facts eearly show that prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case and placed reliance upon Yaqoob Shah v. The State (PLD 1976 SC 53). He further argued that evidence of Khanzada (P.W.9) has to be accepted as he is an injured witness.
He thus submitted that the impugned judgment be set aside and the case be remanded to the trial Court for re-writing of judgment in accordance with law.
9. Conversely, the impugned judgment has been supported by learned counsel for the accused/respondents. It is vehemently argued by him that ocular account stands belied by the medical evidence. While elaborating his contention, he referred to the contents of complaint Exh.P.A., which contains that Wali Dad was given injuries with rifle whereas the said injuries have not been found to be of rifle as per statement of Dr. Khalid Mehmood Chohan (P.W.3), that there is discrepancy in the number of injuries as given by Khanzada (P.W.9) as well as Dr. Khalid Mehmood Chohan (P.W.3) as the former has given the number of injuries as 7 whereas the latter has given the number of injuries as 5, that in the light of such contradictions order of conviction cannot be passed and placed reliance upon Miraj Din and others v. The State (1985 PCr.LJ 2219); Muhammad Tayyab v. The State (1991 PCr.LJ 174), Nawaz Ali and another v. The State (1981 SCMR 132), Mardan Ali v. Gulistan and others (1980 SCMR 889).And Ghulam Farid v. The State (1992 SCMR 1258). Regardin, the evidentiary value of the evidence of an injured witness, he submitted that injuries do prove the presence of a witness but it does not mean that his statement has the stamp of correctness and placed reliance upon Attaullah and another v. The State (PLD 1990 Pesh. 10). He contended that it is not necessary that an injured witness is a truthful witness and placed reliance upon Said Ahmad v.Zamurrad Hussain and 4 others (1981 SCMR 795). He argued that even the evidence of injured eye-witness requires corroboration which is lacking in the instant case and placed reliance upon Muhammad Hayat and another v. The State (1996 SCMR 1411). He contended that the trial Court has discussed the evidence in the elaborate manner while returning its findings which do not call for any interference. While elaborate his contention regarding factum of recovery from the accused, he submitted that witnesses of recovery are Muhammad Sadiq and Ghulam Ali but both of them have not been produced in Court and this fact alone makes the factum of recovery highly doubtful.
He submitted that recovery from Zahoor Ahmad was effected after about 3 months of the occurrence and the memo. Of recovery was prepared at the police station whereas recovery has been effected from some other place. Similarly, recovery of empties and gun has been effected after 38 days of the occurrence so it does not carry any value. He further submitted that, occurrence in the instant case took place on 4-8-1988 whereas the accused were acquitted on 11- 2-1991, that the accused are enjoying the fruit of acquittal for the last about one decade and even on this short ground, retrial has not been approved and placed reliance upon Phulail Khan v. The State (1972 SCMR 95) and Sultan Khan and 3 others v. The State and 2 others (1987 SCMR 237).
Similarly, retrial was also not ordered in a case in which order of acquittal was passed about 9 years ago and placed reliance upon Abdul Ghafoor v. Sultan Ali and 4 others (1981 PCr.LJ 868). He thus submitted that all these facts clearly prove that the impugned judgment has been passed in accordance with law and criminal revision being devoid of any force be dismissed.
10. It is evident from the facts stated above that occurrence in the instant case took place on 4-8- 1988 at about 9-00 a.m. The complaint was lodged by Khuda Dad (P.W.8) who claims to be present alongwith his brothers Khanzada (P.W.9) and Wali Dad since deceased. He has given the detail of accused and the arms which they were carrying at the relevant time. Perusal of the complaint gives a details of injuries inflicted to the deceased as well as Khuda Dad injured. A perusal of complaint Exh.P.A. Also reveals that all fire-arm injuries given to the deceased Wali Dad had been caused by rifle with which the accused were armed at the said time. To prove its case prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in this case. Out of them, Khuda Dad complainant is P.W.8 whereas Khanzada (P.W.9) is an injured P.W. Both the said P.Ws. Have tried to support the prosecution version as it appears in complaint Exh.P.A. As per their statements, the deceased Wali Dad was given rifle shots by the concerned accused. However, they stand falsified by Dr. Khalid Mehmood Chohan (P.W.3) who admits that said injuries had been caused with a gun. This clear-cut contradiction between ocular account and medical evidence creates doubt regarding the stand taken by the complainant in complaint Exh.P.A. Again there are contradictions and discrepancies regarding the number of injuries as according to the complainant deceased had received 7 injuries whereas Medical Officer (P.W.3) talks about 5 injuries. Similar is the case with regard to recoveries of weapons of offence. Admittedly none of the witnesses of recovery has been examined and all the memos. Have been brought on record through the statement of Investigating Officer. Much stress has been laid by learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner on the statement of Khanzada (P.W.9) who is an injured witness in the instant case. There is no doubt that presence of an injured witness cannot be doubted on the spot but it does not mean that he is a truthful witness and presumption of truth attached to his statement. Even the statement of an injured witness has to be corroborated by an independent evidence and order of conviction cannot be based on his solitary statement. Thus statement of P.W.9 Khanzada cannot be made basis for passing an order of conviction when it also stands contradicted by medical evidence and lacks independent corroboration.
11. In the light of facts stated above, it is proved that the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment after carefully scanning and analysing the evidence which is unexceptionable and does not call for any interference. Consequently, the Criminal Revision fails and is hereby dismissed.