Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 1332 of 1967, decided on 13th February 1968.

-----

---No enmity existing between prosecution witnesses and accused‑Mere interestedness of witnesses‑Does not render their evidence tainted so as to be looked into with circumstances.

S. 325/34‑Evidence Prosecution witnesses, though related inter se, not inimical towards accused‑Evidence of such witnesses supported by another dis interested witness and supplemented from circumstances of injuries on persons of accused‑Case against accused, held, fully esta blished.

M. G. Cheema for Petitioners.

Nemo for the State.

The applicants were convicted by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Chiniot for an offence under section 307/34, P. P. C. by Judgment dated 25th September 1967 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur Division of Jhang, on appeal from the applicants altered their conviction from sections 307/34 to 325/34, P. P. C. and reduced their sentence to rigorous imprison ment for one year and six months each respectively. The applicants being aggrieved with this judgment have filed this revision application.

2. The facts out of which this revision application arises briefly are that on 6th December 1963, Riaz Hussain Shah took his bullocks through the land of Khadim Hussain which was cultivated by Humayun on which Humayun got annoyed and abused Riaz Hussain Shah. Riaz Hussain Shah felt humiliated and, therefore, slapped Humayun and brought back his bullocks. Humayun and others then attacked Riaz Hussain Shah while he was going to the shop of Ahmad Shah, his uncle on the same day at Digarwella. Na7ar Hussain Shah and Ahmad Shah, who were attracted on cries, also sustained injuries. Riaz Hussain Shah then lodged the first information report Eah. P D/1 on 7th December 1963, at 7‑30 p.m. at Chiniot Police Station which was at a distance of 15 miles from the scene of offence.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants has argued this revision application purely on questions of fact and has urged that the evidence of Riaz Hussain Shah, Nazar Hussain Shah and Ghulam Hussain P. W. 2 should not be relied upon implicitly merely because they all happen to be related. I see no reason why the evidence of these three witnesses, who are related, should not be believed because nothing has been brought to my notice that there existed any enmity between these witnesses and the applicants before the incident. Mere interestedness of the witnesses alone will not render their evidence tainted so as to be looked into with circumstances. Apart from that, the evidence of these witnesses also receives support from the evidence of Haq Nawaz P. W. 4, who is admittedly not related to them. All these four witnesses have unanimously stated that the applicants caused injuries to Riaz Hussain, Nazar Hussain Shah and Ahmad Shah out of whom Riaz Hussain Shah and Ahmad Shah received grievous injuries whereas Nazar Hussain Shah received simple injuries. The evidence of these witnesses gets supplemented from the circumstances of injuries on the persons of applicants Habib and Ahmad alias Ahmad. The applicants also admit their presence but allege that they received injuries because they intervened in the fight that took place between Riaz Hussain Shah and others on one side and Kehries on the other side. The evidence, in my opinion, has established the case against the applicant fully and the two Courts were quite right in giving a concurrent finding on the questions of fact holding the applicants guilty for the offences they are alleged to have committed.

4. What, however, needs to be mentioned in this revision application is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while he was quite justified in altering the conviction of the applicant from one under section 307/34 to one under section 325/‑44, P. P. C. and reducing their sentence from rigorous imprisonments for two years each to rigorous imprisonment for one year each he was not justified in recording the conviction of the applicants under section 323/34, P. P. C. as there was no conviction of any kind recorded against the applicants except for offences under section 307/34, P. P. C. only. Under these circumstances accept the revision application filed by the applicants in regard to their conviction under section 323/34, P. P. C. but reject the same in respect of their conviction under section 325/34, P. P. C. The applicants stand acquitted in respect of offence under section 323/34, P. P. C.

5. With this modification, the revision application filed by the applicants stands dismissed. Warrants of arrest should be issued against the applicants who are on bail to be served on them for serving out the remaining part of their sentences.

Petition partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.