Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 709 of 1984, heard on 19th January, 1984.

---S. 307‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑Presence of prosecution witnesses proved due to injuries on their persons‑‑Occurrence taking place al 1‑15 p.m., as such identification of assailants not difficult‑‑Suffering of injuries by prosecution witnesses at hands of petitioners proved from their statements‑‑No material contradiction /discrepancy in statements of eye‑witnesses pointed out‑‑Participation of accused in occurrence, held, proved beyond reasonable doubt in circumstances.

---S. 307‑‑Private defence, right of‑‑Ladies, victim of assault, not produced to support defence version‑‑Their medico‑legal reports not placed on record‑‑Non‑production of ladies giving rise to presumption that had they been produced they might not have supported prosecution case‑‑Defence version, held, could not be held true in circum stances.‑‑[Witnesses].

‑‑‑S.307‑‑Accused causing injuries, dangerous to life with fire‑arm, held, rightly convicted under S.307, P.P.C.

‑‑‑Ss.307 & 324‑‑Expert evidence‑‑Accused causing grievous injury with sharp‑edged weapon‑‑Radiologist not examined‑Conviction of accused under S.307, P.P.C. set aside and instead convicted under S.324, P.P.C.‑‑[Evidence].

‑‑‑Ss.307 & 324‑‑Accused causing simple injuries with Dangs Conviction under S.307; P.P.C. altered to one under S.324, P.P.C.

Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioners.

Sharif Butt for the State.

Date of hearing: 19th January, 1985.

The facts giving rise to this revision are that Habib, Gulla and Ghulam petitioners alongwith 5 others were tried by Magistrate Section 30, Toba Tek Singh under section 307/326/148/149. P.P.C. for murderous assault on and causing injuries to Zafar lqbal, Abdail and Sultan P. Ws.

2. To prove its case prosecution produced 11 witnesses. Zafar Iqbal P.W.1, Abdail P.W.2 and Sultan P.W.3 are the injured witnesses. They stated that the petitioners and others variously armed launched murderous assault on them and caused injuries to them. Hameed P.W.4, Allah Baksh P.W.5 are the witnesses of the occurrence. They supported the prosecution case. Dr. Ghulam Muhammad P.W.9 had examined the injured witnesses. He found 5 injuries on the person of Zafar Iqbal P.W.1. Injury No.1 which was caused by fire‑arm, was found dangerous to life. Injuries Nos.2 & 5 caused by sharp‑edged weapon were declared grievous. The rest of the injuries were simple Abdail received Z simple injuries caused with blunt weapon. Sultan also received 2 simple injuries caused by blunt weapon. The rest of the evidence is not of much importance.

3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied all the incriminating circumstances. Habib and Gulla raised the plea of self‑defence. They stated that at the time of occurrence they were present at the Dera of Ghulam petitioner where the complainant party came and injured Mst. Amiran, Waziran and Bakhtan, therefore, they in exercise of the right of self‑defence caused the injuries to the P.Ws. In defence two witnesses were produced. Muhammad D.W.1 and Sikandar D.W.2 stated that Qutab and Hameed, co‑accused were not present at the time of occurrence. Habib petitioner tendered Exhs. D.A., D.B., D.D., D.E., D.F. and D.G., copies of the orders of Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, Kalandra under section 13/14 of Gunda Ordinance and the orders of Assistant Commissioner in case under section 13/14 of Gunda Ordinance against him. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate Section 30 while acquitting 5 co‑accused convicted the petitioners under section 307/34, P.P.C. to 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 each in default thereof one month's R.I. each. The appeal filed by the petitioners failed on 11‑11‑1984, hence this revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the eye witnesses are not reliable; that they are inimical and partisan witnesses; that their evidence has been disbelieved to the extent of acquitted 5 accused; that their evidence suffers from material contradictions/ discrepancies; that there is no independent corroboration of their statements; that from the evidence and circumstances of the case it is very much proved that the complainant party was aggressor one and that the petitioners had acted in exercise of the right of self‑defence. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that by the fact of injuries on the person of Zafar Iqbal, Abdail and Sultan P.Ws., their presence on the spot at the time of occurrence is very much proved; t6t the occurrence took place at 1.15 p.m., and as such, there was no difficulty in the identification of the assailants; that from the statements of the injured A witnesses, it is very much proved that they suffered injuries at the hands of the petitioners; that the petitioners also admitted their presence at the time of occurrence; that Hameed and Allah Bakhsh are confidence inspiring witnesses and that the learned counsel has failed to point out any material contradiction /discrepancy in the statements of the eye-witnesses. I am convinced that the prosecution has proved then participation of the petitioners in the occurrence beyond reasonable doubts. As far the claim of the petitioners that they acted in exercise of the right of self‑defence to save Mst. Amiran Waziran and Bakhtan from the attack of the complainant party, I find that the ladies have not been produced in support the defence version. They allegedly being the victim of the assault of the complainant party were the best witnesses of the manner of the occurrence. Their non‑production gives rise to the presumption that had they been produced they might not have supported the prosecution case. The petitioners did not care to place on record of this case the medico‑legal reports of Mst. Amiran, Waziran and Bakhtan. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no reasonable possibility of the defence version being true. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the injured P.Ws. had received injuries at the hands of the petitioners.

6. This brings me to the nature of offence committed by them. I find that Habib had caused injury dangerous to life with fire‑arm to Zafar Iqbal P.W., and as such, he was rightly convicted under section 307, P.P.C. by the trial Court. The sentence awarded to him is also not excessive. So far as Gulla is concerned, he caused grievous injury with sharp‑edged weapon on the person of Zafar Iqbal P.W. Since Radiologist has not been examined, therefore, there is no option but to set aside his conviction and sentence under section 307, P.P.C., instead 'he is convicted under section 324, P.P.C. and sentenced to 2 years' R.I. and fine of Rs.500, in default thereof 3 months' R.I. Coming to the case of Ghulam petitioner I find that he caused simple injuries with Dang. His conviction under section 307, P.P.C. is set aside and is altered to one under section 324, P.P.C. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he remained for about 6 months as under‑trial prisoner and is in jail as convict since 30‑8‑1984. In these circumstances, the sentence already undergone by him would meet the case. The sentence of fine of Rs.500 is also set aside Resultantly, the petition to the extent of Habib petitioner is dismissed in toto. His conviction and sentence under section 307, P.P.C. by the trial Court is maintained. Gulla is 2onvictpd under section 324, P.P.C and sentenced to 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500, in default thereof 3 months' R.I. He shall get benefit of the provision of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. Ghulam is convicted under section 324, P.P.C. His sentence is reduced to one already undergone. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

M. A. K. 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.