Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑22 of 1969, decided on 7th January 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 11th August 1969, in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1967).

------- S. 325/34‑Intention‑Accused coming armed with lathis with common intention of causing injuries to complainant's party and inflicting simple injuries on some but grievous injury on one‑Conviction of accused under S. 325/34, held, justified.

Samandar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 7th January 1970.

.‑The petitioners were tried for offences under sections 394, 397, 323 and 325/34, P. P. C., by the Sessions Judge, Sukkur, by order dated the 14th April 1967. The petitioners were acquitted of the charges under sections 394, 397 and 323, P. P. C. They were, however, convicted under section 325/34, P. P. C. and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment each and also to pay a fine of Rs 500 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The petitioners challenged this judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1967, which was dismissed on the 11th August 1969.

The allegation against the petitioners is that on the 23rd October 1965, at about noon time when the complainant Nabi Bux was ploughing his land, the petitioners armed with lathis came and told him that he had been making complaints against them and in order to teach him a lesson, they forcibly took away his bullocks. Vile he was resisting, the petitioners gave him lathis blows. At this he raised alarm which attracted P. Ws. Ali Murad and Din Muhammad. These persons intervened but the petitioners gave them also lathi blows. All the three injured persons went to Bagerji Police Station and lodged the First Information Report. All the three injured persons were sent to the Hospital for treatment.

The petitioners were arrested but the bullocks were secured from the cattle pound where these were alleged to have been impounded by one Kabil. The learned Sessions Judge held that the case of the complainant for the robbery of the bullocks had not been proved. He, however, convicted them for causing injuries to the complainant party in furtherance of their common intention under section 325/34, P. P. C. This order was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1967, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on the lath August 1969. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said other.

In support of the petition, Mr. Samandar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the injuries caused to the complainant party were of ‑simple nature and as the petitioners have been acquitted under section 323, P. P. C. their conviction under section 325/34, P. P. C. is not justified. The contention of the learned counsel has no force. The conviction of the petitioners is based on the oral testimony of three witnesses, namely, Nabi Bux, Ali Murad and Dur Muhammad. The evidence of these witnesses and the Medical Officer showed that six injuries were caused to P. W. Din Muhammad, four injuries were caused to Ali Murad and five injuries on the person of complainant Nabi Bux. According,, to the medical evidence, all the injuries, except the injury on the hand of Ali Murad, were simple and was caused with hard and blunt weapon such as lathi. P. W. Ali., Murad had a fracture of the third metacarpal bone which was found to he grievous. One of the persons also received injuries on the head. In presence of this evidence, the learned Courts below were fully justified in convicting the petitioners under section 325/34, P. P. C.

The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no common intention to cause grievous injuries to the complainant party is also devoid of all force. The evidence has established beyond doubt that the petitioners came armed with lathis with the intention of causing injuries to the complainant party.

Lastly it was contended by the learned counsel for the peti tioners that as the case against them for robbery was not believed by the Courts below, the evidence of the same witnesses should not have been accepted in respect of the offence under section 325/34, P P. C. This contention has also no force. The P. Ws. who were injured persons were examined by a medical doctor and were also treated in the Hospital. Their evidence about the injuries caused to them was quite reliable and the conviction of the petitioners based on that is fully justified is no force in the petition which is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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