' This is a reference by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad recommending that a judgment of acquittal passed by Civil Judge & F. C. M,, Badin acquitting the four respondents of an offence under sections 307, 324, 323 read with 34, P. P. C. May be set aside and the respondents be committed to the Court of Session for trial.
2. The facts in brief are that complainant Jaffar lodged F. I. R. At Badin Police Station on 3-9-1971 alleging that he was attacked while standing in front of his house by the four respondents who were armed with hatchets and lathis. That P. W. Umar who had intervened also sutstained injuries at their hands. After usual investigation the respondents were challaned in the Court of Civil Judge & F. C. M. Badin. Besides injured Jaffer and Umar and eye-witness All Mohammed P. W. Was also examined. The learned Civil Judge and F. C. M. Framed charge under section 324/34, P. P. C. Against all the four respondents and acquitted them for the reasons that the F. I. R. Was lodged after a delay of 10 hours. That no particular part was assigned to each of the respondents in the F. I. R. And that the prosecution witnesses were all near relations and they were, therefore, interested, and there was no independent corroboration. That according to the version of the accused respondents they had been got implicated at the instance of one Ghulam Mohammad who was inimical towards them. Learned Civil Judge accordingly allowed the benefit of doubt to the respondents.
3. It has been pointed out that in this case the complainant had apprehensions that he would not get a fair decision at the hands of the trial Magistrate and he had accordingly filed a transfer application before the S. D. M. Which had been granted on 22-9-1972. The trial had been fixed for arguments on 23-9-1972 but the learned Magistrate showed extraordinary hurry in disposal of the case and pronounced judgment immediately after the arguments in spite of the transfer orders.
4. From the facts and circumstances of the case an offence under section 307, P. P. C. Does not appear to have been made out. If 4 persons had attacked complainant Jaffer with lathis and hatchets nothing prevented them from carrying out their intention if the intention had been to commit murder. On the other hand the medical evidence shows only simple injuries and abrasions and simple incised wounds which were merely skin deep. It cannot, therefore, be argued that the charge in this case was erroneous and, that the case could have been committed to the Court of Session under a charge under section 307, P. P. C. It is also clear that the F. I. R. Besides, having been delayed does not contain definite allegations nor have any parts been assigned to each of the four culprits. In evidence this has been improved upon and an attempt has been made to implicate all the accused persons. The prosecution witnesses are admittedly rear relations and there A was some bad blood between the parties. Under these circumstances the) judgment of the Civil Judge and F. C. M. Does not appear on the face of it to be illegal or perverse nor can it be said that in assessm ent of evidence the legal principles have been contravened. It may be that on the same evidence' a different view might have been taken on facts but that alone would not be a sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The incident took place in 1971 and the matter is already 7 or 8 years, old. It would not be expedient at this stage to order a fresh trial.
4. In the result the reference is rejected.