Find a Lawyer

Criminal. Revision No. 184 of 1986, heard on 1st July 1986.

‑‑‑S. 307‑‑Sentence, reduction in‑‑Alleged motive too weak and immediate cause for attack not disclosed by prosecution‑‑Sentence already undergone by accused, held would meet ends of justice, in circumstances.

Ch. Muhammad Yasmeen for Appellant.

Muhammad Sharif Butt for the State.

Date of hearing: 1st July, 1986.

Javid alias Khala was tried for having murderously assaulted Ihsan. Mr. Mohsin Sherazi, Magistrate, Section 30, Sargodha convicted him on 24‑6‑1985 under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced him to four years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 3,000 in default to undergo six months R.I. further. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentence to 3] years with a fine of Rs. 3,000 in default to undergo six months R.I. Petitioner has come up in revision.

2. Briefly the prosecution case is that Mst. Bano a cousin of the petitioner was married to Ihsan who divorced her three years before the occurrence in this case. This according to the prosecution was the motive for attack on lhsan with a Knife on 2‑2‑1983 at 11‑30 a.m. in the busy street. After the attack the injured was carried to Civil Hospital. His brother Ghulam Sarwar after obtaining the medico‑legal report was on his way to the police station, he met with Ghulam Muhamrrad A . S.I . who was on patrol duty and made statement Exh. P.A. to him on the basis of which formal F.I. R. Exh. P. A/1 was registered at Police Station City Sargodha at 4‑30 p.m. P.W.3 Dr. Mazhar Khan Senior Medical Officer, D.H.Q. Hospital Sargodha found three sharp edged weapon injuries on the person of Ihsan out of which the injury in the back was declared grievous, the rest were simple. The accused was arrested on 7‑2‑1983 and in custody he got recovered his Knife P.1 which was taken into possession through memo. Exh. P. B. attested by P.W.4 Ghulam Muhammad and Liaqat Ali (given up) besides the investigating officer. After completing the investigation, the accused was tried in due course.

3. At 'the trial, he denied guilt and said that in fact he was attacked by Ihsan, Sarwar and Muhammad Akram and he also filed a private complaint. In his defence, he produced two witnesses who deposed that when they saw the occurrence the parties were fighting with each other.

4. Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not satisfactorily proved the motive. Since the accused did not take the positive plea. of the right of self‑defence, trial Court came to the conclusion that in fact the petitioner was the aggressor.

4. Criticising the finding, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was a case of self‑defence. I have gone through the statement of the accused. Except for a general statement that he was attacked by the victim and two others, he has not specified any reasor nor any explanation as to why he was suggested to the witnesses. Even the complaint which he allegedly filed is not forthcoming in this case. On the other hand the motive for the attack is also too weak. In the first place, Mst. Bano lived with her father and brother. Had there been any grudge on account of her divorce; they would have been the first to react. Petitioner is not her blood relation. Moreover, the said divorce took place about 3 years before the occurrence in this case. It appears that the immediate cause of occurrence has not been disclosed by the prosecution nor the accused has put up clear version as to why he was attacked. Admittedly his complaint was dismissed and no revision has been filed by him. In view of the circumstances of this case, there is nothing in the evidence to made out a case of exercise of right of self‑defence. Since the alleged motive is too weak and the immediate cause for the attack is not disclosed by the prosecution, and earlier the case was remanded for a retrial after (sic) in view of these circumstances, I am of the opinion, that the sentence already undergone by him would meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine is also reduced to Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo one month R.I. The petitioner shall be released forthwith on payment of fine.

S.G.D. 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.