Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No.119 of 1983, decided on 12th November, 1983.

‑‑‑S.307/34‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑F.I.R. lodged promptly‑‑Names of witnesses, accused and weapons used, given therein‑‑Defence failing to shake F. I. R.‑‑Identification of accused not doubted‑‑Numbers and nature of injuries commensurating with number of accused‑‑Prosecution version corroborated by surrounding circumstances‑‑Defence plea that at eventful time victim had cut jokes with sister of accused neither proved by producing her in defence nor spelt out from prosecution evidence and circumstances of case‑‑Conviction of accused maintained in circumstances.

‑‑‑S.307‑‑Sentence‑‑Injury caused not a cut through and through as such same could not be termed as grievous‑‑Sentence reduced to 2 years' R.I.‑‑[ Sentence].

Rana Abdur Rahim Khan and Sh. Dilawar Hussain for Appellants.

Rafiq Ahmad Malik for the Complainant.

Zawar Shah for the State.

Date of hearing: 12th November, 1983.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffargarh, whereby he on 16‑5‑1983 convicted Sajjad Hussain and Fayyaz Hussain appellants under section 307/34, P.P.C., and sentenced them to 6 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000 each, in default thereof to further R.I. for one year,

2. The prosecution case is that the appellants in furtherance of their common intention launched murderous assault on Hafeez Ullah P.W.5 at 6‑30 a. m. on 12‑7‑1982 near a tube‑well, in village Jhanday Wali of P.S. Rohilanwali. It has been alleged that Sajjad Hussain armed with a hatchet and Fayyaz Hussain armed with a Sota inflicted 7 injuries. Injury No.1 found on the head and declared dangerous to life as well as grievous, has been attributed to Fayyaz Hussain and injury No.3 (grievous) on the leg has been attributed to Sajjad Hussain appellant. Out of 7 injuries found on the person of Hafeez Ullah P.W.5, three injuries were caused with blunt and the rest with sharp‑edged weapon.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Out of whom Yar Muhammad P.W.1. Habib Ahmad P.W.2, Ibrahim P.W.3, Karim Bakhsh P.W.4 and Hafeez Ullah P.W.5 (the injured) have given ocular account of the occurrence. Dr. Zubbair P.W.7 had examined the victim. He declared injury No. 1 dangerous to life and injury No.3 as grievous caused by blunt and sharp‑edged weapon respectively. Dr. Saeed Ahmad P.W.9, Assistant Radiologist, stated that injuries Nos. 1 and 3 were grievous. Usman P.W.6 is a witness of motive. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature. The eye‑witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case as detailed above. Usman P. W.6 has stated that Sajjad appellant used to roam‑around his house with ulterior motive. Hafeez Ullah repremanded him whereon he become annoyed.

4. Fayyaz Hussain appellant denied his participation in the crime. Sajjad Hussain, however, took the plea of grave and sudden provocation. His version is that at the eventful time, Hafeez Ullah had cut jokes with his sister in his hearing, resultantly, he injured him in provocation. Muhammad Ramzan D.W.1 has proved Exh. D.3

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts; that P.Ws. 1 to 5 being chance and interested witnesses, are not reliable; that there are material contradictions in the statements of the eve‑witnesses as to the sequence in which they reached the spot and saw the occurrence and that the witnesses have given the divergent statements on the point of motive.

As against this, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel with care and have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. It is a case of prompt F.I.R. The names of the witnesses, the appellants and the weapons used by them are given therein. The defence has failed to shake this document. The occurrence having taken place in daylight, there was no difficulty for Hafeez Ullah to identify the assailants. The appellants were already known to him. The numbers and the nature of the injuries commensurate with the number of the assailants, Hafeez Ullah had no personal enmity with the appellants to falsely involved them. Sajjad Hussain appellant has admitted his presence and participation. Muhammad Ibrahim P.W.3 is quite independent. He has supported Hafeez Ullah P.W.5 all material particulars. There is no doubt that there are contradictions in his evidence and statement before the police as to the place wherefrom he heard the alarm, but since the statement before the police i.e. Exh. D.A. has not been proved by the Investigating Officer, therefore, the contradictions cannot be looked' into. The mere relationship of Yar Muhammad and Habib Ahmad P.Ws with the victim is not sufficient to discard their statements. The eye‑witnesses have stood the test of cross‑examination. The prosecution version is corroborated by the surrounding circumstances. For all these reasons I do not see any reason to disbelieve the eye‑witnesses.

7. Coming to the plea raised by the learned counsel I find that the same has not been proved by any evidence. The appellant could produce his sister but she has been withheld. The plea is not spelt out from the prosecution evidence and circumstances of the case. The number and nature of the injuries and the kind of the weapons used in the occurrence indicate that at least two persons had inflicted injuries on the person of the victim and not by Sajjad Hussain alone. There is even no possibility of the defence version being true. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants under section 307, P.P.C. is maintained. On the question of sentence I find that injury No.3 allegedly caused by Sajjad Hussain being not a cut through and through as stated by Dr. Zubair and Muhammad Saeed, the Assistant Radiologist, the same) cannot be termed as a grievous injury. Since Sajjad Hussain has caused simple injuries, I am inclined to reduce his sentence from 6 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000 to 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000 in default thereof to 6 months' R.I. The sentence awarded to Fayyaz Hussain appears to be excessive. It is reduced to 4 years' R.I. The fine of Rs.10,000 is, however, maintained. With these reductions in the sentences, the appeal is dismissed.

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.