Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 486 of 1970, heard on 25th March, 1985.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--

---S.324/34--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439--Additional Evidence--Defence plea that complainant party was aggressor and one of accused also suffered injuries in same incident--Plea of total denial in defence--Defence not producing defence evidence though a number of-opportunities were given for doing so--Defence only praying for resummoning of two (some) prosecution witnesses which was granted- Accused changing stand at appellate stage and filing application for additional evidence of Doctor--Such prayer disallowed by appellate Court--Defence in fact canvassing case of self-defence in cross-cases in .which complainant party was acquitted--Held, no useful purpose would be served at revisional stage in remanding case for proving of medical report.

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--

---S. 324/34--Conviction--Evidence showing that conviction of accused was just and proper--Conviction maintained.

(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--

---S. 324/34--Sentence--Revision coming up for hearing after about fifteen years--Sentence reduced to that already undergone in circumstances.

Allah Wasaya Malik for Petitioners.

Bashir Baig for A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 25th March, 1985.

This is a revision petition filed by Muhammad Khan and Jahangir Khan, petitioners, against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Mianwali dated 27-4-1970, dismissing their appeal. Earlier, the Additional District Magistrate, Mianwali, by his judgment dated 29-11-1969, had convicted the petitioners under section 324/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to six months' rigorous imprisonment each.

2. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that Muhammad Khan, petitioner, suffered three blunt weapon injuries on his person in the same incident and that the - complainant party wag the aggressor. It is also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge illegally rejected the application of the petitioner to prove the injury sustained by Muhammad Khan petitioner, in the occurrence.

3. Arguments heard.

4. The record shows that initially the petitioners openly and unequivocally denied their involvement in the occurrence and though a number of dates were taken by them for producing defence evidence, they did not do so. On the contrary, they prayed for the resummoning of two of the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination, which was permitted. It was only in appeal that the petitioners changed their stance and filed an application under section 428, Cr.P.C.. for proving the medico-legal report of Muhammad Khan, petitioner, which was disallowed by the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that the case of the petitioners, for whatever it is worth, was canvassed in the cross- case, which was also filed by the police with the present case, where the trial Magistrate found the cross-case of the petitioners false and acquitted the complainant party who were accused in that case. In these circumstances, no useful purpose can now be served in remanding the appeal for the medico-legal report to be proved. Having gone through the evidence it appears that the conviction of the petitioners is just and proper. However, considering that the present revision petition, which was admitted in 1970, has now come up for hearing after almost fifteen years, I would reduce the sentence of the petitioners to that already undergone.

5. For the foregoing reasons, whilst maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under section 324/34, P.P.C., I would reduce the sentences of the petitioners to that already undergone. The petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

S. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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