Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 1982, decided on 23rd November, 1983.

--S.307--Attempt to murder--Prosecution version supported by indepen dent and disinterested person who had no motive to falsely implicate accused--Prosecution witnesses cross-examined at length by defence but their evidence remaining unshaken--Conviction maintained.

---S. 307--Attempt to murder--Conviction--Sentence--Accused under agony of protracted trial and also remaining in jail as an under-trial prisoner- Sentence reduced.--[Sentence].

Ghulam Mubashir for Petitioner.

Dil Muhammad Tarar for the State.

Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1983.

Hidayat son of Rehmat Ullah, resident of Chak No. 227/J.B. was tried by Mr. Muhammad Zawar Ali Magistrate Section 30, Toba Tek Singh, under section 307, P.P.C. for making murderous assault on Mst. Anwari. By judgment dated 10th June, 1982 he was convicted on the said charge and sentenced to R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.1,000 or in default in the payment thereof to undergo further R.I. for one year. The convict has appealed.

2. The prosecution version is that on 10th June, at about 7 a.m, Mst. Anwari was cutting grass from a field in the area of Chak No. 277/J.B. The appellant came there with a Datar in his hand and asked her to accompany him but she refused to do so, upon which he gave her several Datar blows hitting her neck right shoulder and back side of head. On her alarm her brother Boota, Abdul Hamid and Abdul Ghafoor P . Ws. got attracted to the spot. On seeing them, the appellant fled away from the spot. Mst. Anwari Begum was removed to Civil Hospital Thekari wala. Muhammad Boota reported the occurrence to Muhammad Ilahi, A.S.I. on 11th June, 1978 at 2 p.m. at Dandianwala Bridge, vide his statement Exh.P.A. on the basis of which formal F.I.R. was recorded at Police Station Gojra on the same day at 4 p.m.

3. The appellant was arrested on 15th June, 1978. On 19th June, 1978 he led to the recovery of Datar from his house. After the investigation he was challaned.

4. On 10th June, 1978 Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad Paracha, Medical Officer Civil Hospital, Thekariwala examined Mst. Anwari Begum and found eight injuries on her person, out of which four were incised wounds. Injury No.2 was declared grievous. It was an incised wound 5" x 1 " x mouth cavity deep 3/4" from the left angle of mouth extending upto pinna cutting it completely.

In support of its case the prosecution examined three eye-witnesses, namely, Mst. Anwari Begum (P.W.2)., Muhammad Boota complainant (P.W.1 ) and Abdul Ghafoor (P.W.3) and it also relied on the evidence relating to recovery of Datar.

5. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against him. He examined two witnesses in his defence. Muhammad Rashid (D.W.1) stated that four years back at 8 a.m. he was grazing goats when Muhammad Boota complainant came there with a Datar in his hand. Hidayat appellant come out of a sugar-cane field and started running towards the village. The complainant gave Datar blows to his sister Mst. Anwari Begum who was also in the aforesaid sugar-cane field. Muhammad Farooq (D.W.2) also made a similar statement. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity. He further submits that the facts and the circumstances of the case lend substantial support to the defence version. In the alternative he prays for reduction in the sentence.

The learned State counsel submits that the occurrence took place in the broad-daylight and it being a case of single accused, it is unbeliev able that the appellant was substituted for the real culprit.

7. I have gone, through the record with the help of the learned counsel for the appellant. The prosecution version is supported by Mst. Anwari Begum injured, her brother Muhammad Boota and Abdul Ghafoor P.W. A who is an independent and disinterested person. They were cross-examined at length but nothing. useful to the defence could be elicited from their statements.

The defence version brought on the record through the defence witnesses is an afterthought. The appellant never took such plea in his examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. It will not be out of place to mention here that it was Muhammad Boota complainant who took Mst. Anwari Begum to Civil Hospital for treatment. His name is mentioned in the relevant column of medico-legal report. If the occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged by the defence, the appellant would not have taken the injured to the hospital. In that case he had rather absconded.

8. The learned counsel relied on judgment, dated 13th June, 1979 (copy Exh. D.11 ) to contend that the parties had strained relations and Mst. Anwari was an unreliable witness. By this judgment the present appellant was acquitted by the Magistrate in a case under section 457, P.P.C. and it shows that in the first instance Mst. Anwari Begum supported the prosecution version but subsequently appearing as a Court witness she gave out that her earlier statement was false and she had made the same at the instance of her husband who was the enemy of the appellant.

It is true that in that case Mst. Anwari Begum made self-contradictory statements but this fact alone is not sufficient to reject the prosecution case. The ocular account furnished by Mst. Anwari and her brother Muhammad Boota finds full corroboration from the evidence of Abdul Ghafoor 8 P.W. who is an independent witness having no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. I am, therefore, of the view 'hat the appellant has been rightly convicted under section 307, P.P.C.

9. The question of sentence, however, requires consideration in appellant faced the agony of a prolonged trial for about four years and also remained in jail as under trial for over a month. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, I reduce his sentence to R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default in the payment thereof to undergo further R.I. for one year. The fine if recovered shall be paid to Mst. Anwari as compensation. With the above modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.

M.Y.H. Order accordingly

Find a Lawyer Near You

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