' This judgment will dispose of Criminal. Appeal No,156 of 1999 and Criminal Revision No,116 of 1999 directed against the judgment dated 2-1-1999 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30 Sargodha, whereby he convicted the appellants under section 324, P.P.C. And were sentenced to undergo 7 years' R.I each under section 334, P.P.C. They were sentenced to five years' R.I. Each with further direction to pay compensation in terms of 'Arsh' worth of Rs,1,70,000 as Diyat amount to the victim Abdul Rahim within three years in 12 equal quarterly instalments alongwith their co-accused Mumtaz Hussain. They were further sentenced to R.I for 2 years under sections 336, 337-A, 1 and 2 and 337-F-4, 5 of P.P.C. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Facts in brief as narrated by complainant Muhammad Hanif in F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 lodged on 24-11- 1996 at 11 a.m. Are that his son Abdul Rahim injured P.W.3 was going to take milk on bicycle and when he reached near Khu Ratitan Wala at about 6-15 a.m., one Muhammad Arshad alongwith Usman, Muhammad Farooq armed with hatchet alongwith one unknown person armed with hatchet suddenly came in his way on the road. Muhammad Usman gave hatchet blow upon forehead of Abdul Raheem, second hatchet blow was inflicted by Muhammad Arshad hitting right side of head of Abdul Raheem, then Muhammad Farooq gave hatchet blow upon the left side of the head of said injured whereas unknown person inflicted injuries upon the head of the victim with hatchet and due to these injuries the victim fell down and then the accused Muhammad Usman gave hatchet blow on the right arm' of the victim near his elbow. Muhammad Arshad accused inflicted injuries with hatchet upon the right elbow of the victim and the right arm of the victim was amputated. Then accused Muhammad Farooq gave hatchet blow upon the left arm of Abdul Raheem near the elbow and then unknown person gave hatchet blow upon the said arm and resultantly these injuries - dismembered the left arm of the victim near the elbow. Thereafter the accused also inflicted various injuries with their hatchets upon the various parts of the body of the victim. On hue and cry of the victim Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Muzammal attracted to the spot and saw the incident and on their Lalkara all the accused ran away. The motive was that some time ago the victim and the accused exchanged hot words. Matter was reported to the police at 11 a.m.
3. After getting information about the occurrence the local police completed all the necessary formalities. Thereafter Saghir Ahmad, alongwith subordinates proceeded to the spot. He prepared the site plan Exh.P.1 and took into possession the blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo.
Exh.P.E. Blood-stained clothes of the injured were also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo. Exh.P.G. On 10-12-1996 he arrested Muhammad Usman, Muhammad Farooq and Mumtaz Hussain on their pointation the Investigating Officer got recovered weapons of offence vide memos. Exh.P.D. Exh.P.E and Exh.P.F respectively. Muhammad Saqlain accused himself appeared in police station with weapon of offence. He was arrested and the weapon of offence was taken into custody vide memo. Exh.P.G. Ultimately all the above said accused were challaned and were sent to judicial lock-up to face the trial.
4. In order to prove its case the prosecution has produced as many as 6 witnesses including Investigating Officer, Doctor, eye-witnesses and other relevant persons. On 18-7-1996 learned Inspector Legal closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Abdul Raheem injured P.W. Examined as P.W.3, had stated before the learned trial Court that he was involved in 100 cases for offences under sections 302, 324 and 392, P.P.0 etc. That Abdul Raheem also admitted that he had no quarrel with Usman appellant on the selling of milk; no identification parade of Saqlain and Mumtaz had taken place and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The occurrence had taken place in November, 1996 at 6-15 a.m. When there was dark and the identification of the accused could not have been established while the matter was reported to the police at 10 a.m. And the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 1 Km. That the presence of two eye- witnesses namely Muhammad Hanif P.W.1 father and Muhammad Muzammal P.W., first cousin of the victim Abdul Raheem is most unnatural. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as 100 cases of heinous nature were registered against the victim Abdul Raheem so he got so many enmities with different people and possibility of false involvement of the appellants cannot be ruled out, that even the delay in the F.I.R. Also cast doubt on the prosecution version, that none of the appellant was ever involved in any criminal case whatsoever, that Rana Saghir Ahmad, Investigating Officer had admitted during cross-examination that motive mentioned in the F.I.R.
Was not proved. He submits that in fact there was no motive on the part of the appellants to cause injuries on the person of victim Abdul Raheem, that the recoveries have been planted on the appellants and moreover those were not stained with blood, that Abdul Raheem was medically examined at 7 a.m. And.That the duration given by the doctor between the injury and the medical examination is six hours. He submits that no case is made out against the appellants and they are entitled to acquittal.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant submits that as far as motive is concerned, Abdul Raheem victim has stated during the trial that he had a quarrel with Mumtaz but he could not state that on what point regarding milk the quarrel had taken place between them, that there was na reason to falsely implicate the appellants- in this case because there was no previous background of enmity between the parties. He submits that not conceding but for the sake of arguments, if father of the appellant namely Muhammad Hanif and Muzammal his first cousin the eye-witnesses were not present at the spot even then the statement of Abdul Raheem injured P.W. Is sufficient to maintain the conviction against the appellant, that both the arms of Abdul Raheem injured P.W. Were amputated during the occurrence, that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is too meager in the circumstances of the present case.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a great length. It is correct that ordinarily injured P.W. Is not disbelieved but the circumstances of this case force me to disbelieve this injured P.W. For the reason that occurrence in this case had taken place according to the prosecution at 6- 15 a.m. When it was too dark. It was 24th of November and in those days Fajjar prayer used to take place at 6-45 a.m. Police station was at a distance of 1 k.m. From the place of occurrence. Matter was reported to the police even not at police station but at hospital at 10 a.m. And the formal F.I.R.
Was registered at 11-00 a.m. Injured P.W. Was not got admitted in the hospital by any of the eye- witness. Three eyewitnesses have been produced by the prosecution including injured P.W.
Muhammad Hanif P.W. Is father while Muzammal P.W. Is first cousin' of the present injured P.W.
Identity of the accused persons at early hours of the morning was doubtful as there was complete dark and no source of light whatsoever was mentioned either in the F.I.R., or by the eyewitnesses before the trial Court. In the F.I.R. It was one Muhammad Arshad accused who opened the attack but he was replaced by Mumtaz appellant. One of the appellants Saqlain was named before the leaned trial Court although, he was not named in the F.T.R. He was shown as an unknown accused, no identification parade had taken place in this regard. Injured was not even taken to the hospital by his father Muhammad Hanif, complainant or Muzammal P.W. His first cousin. In the M.L.R. Exh.P.L.
In the column of relatives or friends name of Abdul Rehman was mentioned who was uncle of the injured P.W. It means that both 'the eye-witnesses father and cousin were not present at the spot even their presence at the spot at that odd hours seems to be very unnatural, unconvincing and unplausible. The doctor conducted the medico-legal examination of injured P.W. At 7-25 a.m. On 24-11-1996 while the occurrence had taken place at 6-15 a.m. The doctor had given the duration between the injuries and the medical examination as six hours which also casts doubt about the time of occurrence. It may also be mentioned here that Abdul Raheem P.W. During cross- examination had admitted that he was involved in 100 cases including cases of under sections 302, 324 and 392, P.P.C. Etc. And other offences of heinous nature. The enmity of Abdul Raheem with other persons in this case cannot be ruled out. He seems to be a person of desperate character and had annoyed many persons during his lifetime because his involvement in 100 cases proves this fact. His statement was not recorded on 24-11-1996 but on 27-11-1996. As far as motive is concerned, even the Investigating Officer, Rana Saghir Ahmad had stated that during the investigation the same could not be proved. If the injured P.W. Abdul Raheem had quarrelled with Usman appellant then there was no need on part of other appellants to join hands with Usman.
Neither it has come on record that they either were relatives of Usman appellant or they were stated to be his friends. It is correct that there was no previous background of enmity between the parties but on the other hand there was also no motive on the part of the appellants to cause injuries to Abdul Raheem P.W. It proves that somebody on the back of this injured was pulling the strings. As I had mentioned earlier that the injured P.W. Is very rarely disbelieved but the circumstances which have been mentioned by me above compels me to disbelieve this injured P.W. Regarding the involvement of the present appellant in this case. One of the accused namely Mumtaz who has been convicted and was never mentioned by the complainant in the F.I.R. And was replaced in place of one Muhammad Arshad accused who had opened the attack on the person of injured P.W., has not filed the appeal for the reasons best known to him. In my considered view there are so many doubts in this case regarding the involvement of the present appellants coupled with the fact that there was no public witness cited, as far as recoveries are concerned, which were allegedly effected on the pointation of the appellants. Moreover, none of them was stained with blood. I, while concluding my judgment, may also mention here that two hands which were amputated allegedly by the present appellants could not have been done so unless somebody catch hold the said hands while other co-accused would cause the injuries. This is a case in which benefit of doubt must be granted to the present appellant and it should not be vithheld for the reason that there was no previous background of enmity been the parties.
8. The nutshell of the above discussion is that this appeal is accepted, conviction and sentence is set aside. They shall be released forthwith if they are not involved in any other criminal case. As far as Mumtaz Hussain accused is concerned, while using my powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. In order to advance the interest of justice, I also acquit him from the charge and he be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Criminal revision is dismissed.