Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SOHAIL ALIAS DITTO VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Sh. Ijaz NisarSh. Fazal Elahi Shahid,Nemo for the State.
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 599
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Ijaz Nisar, J
SOHAIL alias DITTO---Petitioner
versus
THE STATE and others---Respondents
Criminal Revision No.727 of 1991, decided on 7th November, 1992.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 307---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was previously known to eye witnesses, thus they could not have faced any difficulty in identifying him-- Being a case of single accused, no possibility of substitution was available-- F.I.R. was promptly lodged---Being residents of house where occurrence in question had taken place, eye-witnesses examined by prosecution were natural witnesses---Medico-legal Reports clearly showed that injured prosecution witnesses suffered burn injuries---Such circumstances, coupled with evidence of injured prosecution witnesses, was sufficient to prove that injuries were result of acid, as was alleged by prosecution---Motive set up by prosecution against accused also stood established---Accused could not shatter evidence led by prosecution to prove his case---Prosecution case, having stood fully established against accused, he was rightly convicted and properly punished.
Sh. Fazal Elahi Shahid for Petitioner. Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 13th October, 1992.
JUDGMENT
Sohail alias Ditto son of Abdul Hameed was tried under sections 307 and 455, P.P.C. after having trespassed into the house of Muhammad Naseer complainant and caused injuries to him, his sister Mst. Abida, aged 18 years and his brother Majid, aged 14 years, by throwing Acid on them on the night between 5/6-8-1987.
2. The learned trial Court convicted him on 10-10-1991 under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced him to three years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to undergo 6 months' S.I. He filed an appeal against the said judgment which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 18-11-1991.
3. It may not be out of place to mention that the petitioner was earlier convicted by the trial Magistrate on 26-5-1988 but on appeal was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 4-10-1989. Muhammad Naseer complainant challenged his acquittal by filing Criminal Revision No.12 of 1990 in the High Court which was accepted on 10-6-1991 and the acquittal of Sohail petitioner was set aside and the case was sent back to the trial Court for his retrial. As a result of the retrial, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as described above.
Hence this revision.
4. It is stated that there are material contradictions in the ocular evidence and that the report of the Chemical Examiner was not produced to show that the injuries suffered by the injured P.Ws. were of acid. Being a night occurrence, identity of the accused was also doubtful, it is added.
5. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the petitioner was previously known to the eye witnesses, they would not have faced any difficulty in identifying him. Being a case of single accused, there was no possibility of substitution. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged. Being residents of the house where the occurrence in question had taken place the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution were the natural witnesses. The medico-legal reports prepared by Dr. Muhammad Shafique P.W.1 clearly show that the injured P.Ws. suffered burn injures. This circumstance coupled with the evidence of the injured P.Ws. is sufficient to-prove that the injuries were the result of acid. The motive set up by the prosecution against the petitioner also stands established. The petitioner could not shatter the evidence led by the prosecution to prove its case.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution case stands fully established against the petitioner. He was, therefore, rightly convicted and properly punished. The revision petition is dismissed being without any substance.
H.B.T./S-206/L Revision dismissed.