Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No.653 of 1983, decided on 29th February, 1984.
---S.325/34--Grievous hurt--None of prosecution witnesses inimically deposed against accused--Statements of eye-witnesses corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of Sotas (weapon)--Prosecution case standing proved against accused--Conviction maintained.
---S.325/34--Grievous hurt--Conviction--Sentence--Only grievous injury caused by accused on non-vital part of body i.e. little finger of right hand of injured--Sentence of imprisonment reduced from fourteen months to six months.--[Sentence].
---S.325/34--Grievous hurt--No allegation against accused of having been armed or causing any injury and no allegation of even Lalkara against him--Complainant who specifically stated in first information report that accused threatened him, had not stated so at trial--Complainant only making a general allegation that when he tried to rescue injured all accused had threatened him--No formation of common intention of accused with other accused visible from record either--Prosecution, held, failed to establish case against accused beyond reasonable doubt--Accused acquitted in circumstances.
Syed Abbas Ali Shah for Petitioners.
Muhammad Sharif Butt for A.-G for the State.
Date of hearing: 29th February, 1984.
The revision petition is directed against the order, dated 2nd September, 1983 of Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order, dated 26th June, 1983 of M.I.C. Bhalwal, whereof the learned trial Court had convicted the petitioners under section 325/34, P.P.C and sentenced to 14 months' R.I. each.
2. The cattle of Dossa petitioner had trespassed in the cotton field of Abdul Hamid Injured P.W. at about 4 p.m. on 13th July, 1982. Abdul Hamid drove out the cattle from his field and proceeded to the cattle-pond Midh Ranjha alongwith the cattle. Petitioners Dossa and Bashir armed with Sotas accompanied by Amir petitioner, empty-handed, came there and asked Abdul Hamid not to take cattle to pond but Abdul Hamid insisted. Dossa petitioner felt enraged and gave a Sota blow on the right hand of Abdul Hamid. Bashir petitioner gave a Sota blow on the back side of the chest In the lower part to a rib. Umra complainant who was living in a nearby Dera reached the spot on hearing noise. When he attempted to rescue the injured, Amir petitioner had threatened him that if he intervened he will also meet the same fate. Amir had also been raising Lalkaras. The occurence was also witnessed by Mehndi alias Mahnd son of Saddoo. On the beseaching of the P.Ws. the assailants-re-ft Abdul Hamid and took away their cattle to their Dera.
Abdul Hamid was removed to Civil Hospital, Midh Ranjha on 14th July, 1982. F.I.R (Exh.P.A.) was registered at the Police Station on the statement of Umra (P.W.1) at 9-30 a.m. on 15th July, 1982.
About the delay it is stated in the F.I.R that the injured could not be removed to the hospital as it had gone late on the day of occurrence and on the following day no report was made to the police as the accused had been pressing for compromise.
3. During investigation, Dossai and Bashir petitioner had got recovered Sotas on 17th July, 1982, which were taken into possession vide memos. Exhs.P.B. and P.C.
4. At the trial the prosecution examined in all five witnesses. Capt. Dr. Muhammad Anwar (P.W.5) had medically examined, Abdul Hamid and noted two injuries on his person. Injury No.1 was on the right hand while injury No.2 was on the lower part of the back of chest to a rib. Injury No. 1 was declared grievous. Injury No. 2 was kept under observation and X-ray was advised. As no X-ray was produced, the injury was treated as simple. In cross-examination the doctor stated that injury No.1 could have been suffered by friendly hands.
5. Umra (P.W.1), Abdul Hamid (P.W.2) and Mehndi (P.W.3) have deposed the eye-witness account. Abdul Hamid has stated that at 4 p.m. On 13th July, 1982 the cattle of Dossa petitioner had trespassed in his cotton field. Amir petitioner was with the cattle. Hamid drove the cattle out of the field. On a call given by Amir (petitioner) Bashir and Dossa (petitioners) came there armed with Sotas. Dossa gave a Sota blow on his right hand while Bashir gave a Sota blow on his lower part of the back of chest, on the rib. Hearing the noise, Umra and Mehndi P.Ws. reached the spot and rescued him. The accused took away their cattle. He was removed to his Dera. As it had gone late, he could not be taken to the hospital on that day. He was removed to the hospital on the following day and the case was registered on the next day after the medical examination. The narration of occurrence by him has been corrobo rated by Umra complainant (P.W.1) and Mehndi (P.W.3)
6. The petitioners during their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the charge and stated that they have been falsely involved.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the F.I.R was lodged on the third day of the occurrence and that no plausible explanation has been given for that. It is contended that at least there was no justification for not reporting the matter to the police after the medical examination of Abdul Hamid on 14th July, 1982. Learned counsel pointed out some discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses regarding the seats of injuries and contended that the P.Ws. do not appear to have seen the occurrence. About Umra (P.W.1) it was argued that he being a tenant of Abdul Hamid, he has supported the prosecution case on that ground. About Amir petitioner, learned counsel contended that he was, according to the eye-witnesses even, empty-handed and not caused any injury to Abdul Hamid or any one else and so conviction qua him cannot be sustained, About other two petitioners, in the alternate, it has been argued that the sentence of 14 months' R.I. is excessive.
8. I have gone through the judgments of the lower Courts and have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners after having gone through the evidence.
9. The delay has been explained. Hospital was at a distance of 14 miles from the place of occurrence. The occurrence had taken place in the evening. According to the witnesses the injured could not be removed to the hospital as there was no arrangement of transport for taking him to the hospital on the day of occurrence. For not reporting the matter on 14th July, 1982 the witnesses have consistently stated that the peti tioners had been pressing for compromise. The discrepancies pointed out do not seem to be material. In any case, they are not such as to warrant discarding of statements of the eye-witnesses.
None of the P.Ws. was inimically disposed towards the petitioners. In fact, no such thing has been brought out on record. Except the fact of P.W.1 being tenant of P.W.2, no other relationship of the witnesses inter se has been brought on record.
In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel that the P.Ws. have deposed falsely does not carry any weight.
10. The statements of the eye-witnesses in so far as Dossa and Bashir petitioners are concerned find corroboration from the medical evidence and the evidence of recoveries of Sotas. Prosecution case without any doubt stands proved against these two petitioners. Their conviction under section 325/34, P.P.C is, therefore, maintained.
11. Both the petitioners are stated to have caused one injury each. The only grievous injury was on the little finger of the right hand of Abdul Hamid, which is not a vital part of the body. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I feel that sentence of six months' R.I. will meet the ends of justice in this case. The sentence of these two petitioners is reduced from 14 months' R.I. to six months' R.I. each. They shall also be given the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
12. The case of Amir petitioner, however, stands on different footings, There is no allegation that he was either armed or had caused any injury to Abdul Hamid. Abdul Hamid in his statement has not levelled any allegation, except that of having called out his father when the complainant had driven the cattle from the cotton field. Abdul Hamid has not even levelled allegation of Lalkara against him. The complainant, who had specifically stated in the F.I.R. that Amir had threatened him when he wanted to intervene, has also not specifically stated so at the trial. He has made general allegation that when he tried to rescue Abdul Hamid, all the accused had threatened him. There is nothing on record to hold that there was any formation of his common intention with the other accused. The prosecution has not been able to prove the case against him beyond reasonable shadows of doubt. He is, therefore, acquitted.
13. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
M. Y. H. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer