Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1974, decided on 10th September, 1976.

‑‑‑S. 324/326‑‑Ocular evidence‑‑Inconsistency with medical evidence‑ Injured witness stating that more than one injury was caused to other witness‑‑Medical evidence showing only one injury‑‑Contradiction although found available on record but was immaterial in view of consistent statement of other witnesses supporting prosecution version‑ Appeal dismissed.

‑‑‑S. 324/326‑‑Quantum of sentence‑‑Requirements for consideration‑ Appeal remained pending for long time‑‑Mental agony suffered by appellant, held, was enough to meet ends of justice‑‑Sentence reduced to one already undergone.‑‑[Sentence].

Moinuddin Ahmad for Appellant.

S. Murtuza Hussain for the State.

Date of hearing: 10th September, 1976.

Appellant Sultan was tried under sections 324 and 326, P.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who convicted him on 26th January, 1974 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 326, P.P.C. and to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 or in default two months' further rigorous imprisonment under section 324, P.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. According to the prosecution, on 25th October, 1968 at 2 p.m. the appellant stabbed P.Ws. 1 and 2 namely Jamaluddin and lqbal in a fight with P.W. 2 namely lqbal in a barbar shop. The first information report was lodged by complainant P.W. Muhammad Hussain at the City Police Station, Hyderabad, at 2‑15 p.m. P.W. 2 Iqbal received a simple injury whereas P.W.1 Jamaluddin who had reached the spot about 10 minutes after P.W. 2 received grievous injury.

3. There are as many as five witnesses including P.Ws. Iqbal and Jamaluddin who had seen the occurrence and their statements are without any contradictions. They are throughout consistent in their statements and have fully supported the prosecution story. The appellant has also not denied the fact that he was present at the spot. He, however, pleaded innocence.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly argued that there was inconsistency between the medical evidence and the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 says that P.W. 1 had reached the spot about 10 minutes after the knife blow had been inflicted upon P.W. 2 and while P.W. 1 in his statement states that in his presence also knife blows were given to P.W. 2 which means that more than one knife blows were given to P.W. 2 and that too with an interval of about 10 minutes or so. However, the medical evidence is that only one injury was caused. In his own statement P.W. 2 has stated that he had received only one simple injury. The contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel is available on record but it seems that P.W. 1 has stated that in his presence knife injuries were inflicted upon P.W. 2 only in an anxiety to be arrayed as an eye‑witness. However, this contradiction would not mean much because other eye‑witnesses are consistent in supporting the prosecution version. All of them have stated that one simple injury was caused to P.W. Iqbal and one grievous injury was caused to P.W. Jamaluddin who had reached later and had tried to separate P.W. Iqbal from the scuffle. The point raised by the learned counsel is not of much substance and is, therefore, repelled.

5. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any substance in this appeal which is hereby dismissed but the sentence is reduced to the punishment already undergone in view of the fact that the case pertains to 1968 and has remained pending for a long time. The mental agony suffered by the appellant is enough to meet the ends of justice. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled.

S. A. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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