LAHORE - The might of the law is such that it makes one to apologise even from an animal no matter it is a donkey. It may be called a fear of law and the court or a trick to save the face, that sometimes a man has to stoop low to say 'sorry to a donkey. Somewhat the same situation erupted before the court of law on Tuesday when a party had to save its skin by saying 'sorry to a donkey and its master for torturing and injuring the four-leggy. As per background facts of the matter, the donkey of one Nigah Hussain of village Nurpur Thal, Sargodha, mistakenly stepped into the fields of one Muhammad Ramzan in Mid-march morning of year 2003. As Ramzan spotted the asinine creature grazing in his fields, he boiled up, lost temper and hit the poor animal in the back with a metal implement hence drove the injured donkey out. Within no time the incident became big news in the village and attracted attention of the elders when the donkey issue had pitted Ramzan and Nigah against each other and temperature begun to rise. The elders intervened to attempt settlement of the issue but of no avail. Nigah got the donkey medically examined from a vet doctor and on the basis of its examination report, got an FIR under Section 428 PPC registered against Ramzan who was taken into custody by the police concerned as a consequence of it. The challan was placed before the Trial Court where six persons also deposed their statement on the incident but Ramzan was acquitted by the court mainly for the reason, donkey failed to appear before it to record its statement. Against the acquittal, Nigah moved the Lahore High Court where the case was admitted to regular hearing by the then court of Justice Shiekh Abdul Rashid. Last day, the case came up before the court for further proceedings where advocate Waheed Ahmad for the appellant pleaded for sentence to the respondent on the basis of Lego Medico Report (LMR) which showed a serious backbone injury to the poor animal which in-capacitated it to carry the burden and instead, turned its own burden to the master. The proceedings of the court provided a good part of amusement to the present ones in the courtroom. The judge also light-hearted observations, asked the counsel how the punishment can be delivered to the respondent when the affected creature had failed to appear to make out its case. The counsel said the medical report spoke of what torturous treatment was served to the animal. However he said, it would not prosecute the matter if the respondent would say 'sorry for his action. On that the court inquired of the other party which responded through its counsel that it was ready to say 'sorry, but whether it should be to the appellant or to his donkey or the both. Anyway the respondent said 'sorry and apologised for the harsh treatment to the animal and the matter was disposed of in that terms. Hence a happy ending came to a legal situation which otherwise, could have brought about a serious punishment.