Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 800 of 1965, decided on 24th January 1968.

Ss. 394 & 397‑Robbery with attempt to cause grievous hurt or death‑‑Testimony of victim fully corroborated by independent and disinterested witnesses‑Guilt, held, fully brought home to accused.

Ss. 394 & 397‑Robbery with attempt to cause grievous hurt or death ‑Accused in committing robbery neither carrying deadly weapon nor causing any grievous hurt to person robbed‑Conviction under S. 397 altered to that under S. 394.

Mohar Singh v. Emperor 26 Cr. L J 1144 and 1llahi and others v. Emperor 24 Cr. L J 405 ref.

M. Muhammad Iqbal for Appellants.

Nemat Khan for A.‑G. for the State.

Bashir and Siddique appellants were convicted under section 394/34 read with section 397, P. P. C. and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment each. The appellants, against their convictions and sentences, have preferred this appeal.

2. On the day of occurrence, i.e. the 17th of May 1964, at about sunset time, Punnun (P. W. 3) was going to Lallian from Chak No. 116 S. B. on his cycle after selling some goods and when he was going on the mettled road in front of Chak No. 106 S. B. both the appellants who were sitting on the road, stood up and stopped his cycle. Siddique appellant put his hand in the pocket of Puonun P. W. and told him that he should surrender whatever he possessed and when Punnun P. W. begged him to let him go Siddique appellant slapped him and snatched away Rs. 50 from his pocket. Punnun P. W. raised an alarm whereupon Siddique appellant threw him on the ground and exhorted Bashir appellant to kill him for raising the alarm. Bashir appellant thereupon drew out chhuri Exh. P. 1 from his dub and inflicted injuries to Punnun P. W. in his abdomen. Punnun P. W., however, kept on raising an alarm, which attracted Muhammad Hussain (P. W. 4), Muhammad Afzal (P. W. 5), Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 6) and Muhammad Hayat (P. W. 13) to the spot. The appellants then ran away, taking the chhuri with them. All these P. Ws., who were armed with dangs, pursued the appellants and apprehended them at the dera of one Abdullah. While they were apprehending, they also caused some injuries to the appellants Muhammad Afzal P. W. snatched Chhuri from Bashir appellant. Punnun P. W. was then carried to Police Station City Sargodha, where at 8‑30 p.m. on the same day, Head Constable Muhammad Khalil (P. W. 9) recorded statement Exh. P. E. of Punnun P. W. Since the place of occurrence fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station Baghtanwala, the state ment Exh. P. E. was sent there for formal registration of the cases Mobarrir Head Constable Masheer Ali Shah (P. W. 12) on the 18th of May 1964, at 12‑30 a.m., at Police Station Bhaghtanwala drew up formal first information report Exh. P. E./A on the basis of statement Exh. P. E. After sending statement Exh. P. E. to Police Station Bhaghtanwala, Head Constable Muhammad Khalil P. W. took into his possession blood‑stained chhuri Exh. P. 1 from Muhammad Afzal vide memo. Exh. P. H. and made it into a sealed parcel and arrested the appellants. He prepared injury statement Exh. P. M. of Punnun P. W. and sent him for medical examination, He also prepared injury statements Exhs. P. N. and P. Q. of Bashir and Siddique appellants, respectively. Sub‑Inspector Sultan Mahmood (P. W. 11), who investigated this case, recovered blood‑stained earth from the scene of offence as well as currency notes Exhs. P. 3, P. 4/1‑2 and P. 5/1‑10 from a bush at burji No. 41/7 on the road leading to Lyallpur at the instance of Siddique appellant. He also recovered pistol at the instance of Bashir appellant for which he was challaned separately.

3. Doctor Riaz‑ud‑Din (P. W. 2) on the 17th of May 1964, at 9‑55 p.m. examined Punnun P. W. and found a penetrating wound, 3/4" x 1/6" x cavity deep situated in substernal region of the abdomen. The injury was kept under observation. In the opinion of the doctor the injury was caused by a sharp‑edged weapon.

4. Doctor Khurshid Alam Radiologist (P. W. 1) on the 19th of May 1964, took X‑ray and found blood on the left side of the chest. He also found displacement of the heart towards the right, and, therefore, the injury was declared to be dangerous to life.

5. Doctor Riaz‑ud‑Din (P. W. 1) on the 17th of May 1964, at 10‑25 p.m., examined Bashir appellant and found 11 injuries on his person. All the injuries were simple and had been caused by a blunt weapon.

Doctor Riaz‑ud‑Din P. W. on the same day also examined Siddique appellant and found seven injuries on his person. These injuries were also simple and had been caused by a blunt weapon.

6. The appellants denied their guilt and declined to produce any defence.

7. The prosecution case against the appellants rests mainly on the testimony of Punnun P. W., who is fully corroborated by the testimony of Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Afzaf. Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Hayat P. Ws. These witnesses are completely independent and disinterested and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony.

8. In the result I am satisfied that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that the conviction of Siddique appellant under section 397, P. P. C. was illegal because he neither carried the chhuri nor caused any grievous; hurt to Punnun P. W. In support of his contention he relied on cases: Mohar Singh v. Emperor (26 Cr. L J 1144) and Illahi and others v. Emperor (24 Cr. L 1405). In the former case it was held that:‑‑

"Section 397 of the Penal Code applies only to the persons who actually cause grievous hurt or are themselves armed with deadly weapons."

In the latter case it was held:

"The works such offender' in section 397 of the Penal Code, refer to the offence who uses a deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person, and do not include those who jointly commit robbery or dacoity with him,"

The learned counsel for the State conceded that the conviction of Siddique appellant under section 397, P. P. C. cannot be main tained. In view of the above I set aside the conviction of Siddique appellant under section 397, P. P. C. and instead convict him under section 394/34, P. P. C. and sentence him to four years' rigorous imprisonment. The convictions and sentence of Bashir appellant, however, maintained. The appeal is accepted to the above extent only.

Appeal 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.