Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 1977, heard on 2nd July, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 307/34 & 342/34‑‑Accused allegedly taking injured prosecution witness to a house, locking door from inside and causing injuries to him with blunt weapons‑‑No occasion found for eye‑witnesses to see eleven accused giving injuries to injured witness who was injured in a room which was bolted from inside‑‑Statement of injured person that he was injured by 11 accused for half an hour belied by number of injuries found on his person‑‑Prosecution, held, failed to prove offence under S. 307/34, P‑.P.C.‑‑Conviction under S. 307/34, set aside.

‑‑‑S. 342/34‑‑Statement of detenu getting support from statements of two prosecution witnesses‑‑One of said witnesses was Police official who recovered detenu from a room bolted from inside where accused were present‑‑No reason found to disbelieve said witness s‑‑Statements of said witnesses not suffering from any inherent infirmity‑‑Witnesses found to be quite independent ones‑‑No exception, held, could be taken to conviction of accused under S. 342/34, P.P.C.‑‑Conviction under S.342/34.P.P.P. maintained.

‑‑‑S. 342/34‑‑Sentence‑‑Occurrence taking place twelve years ago‑ Accused suffering agony of protracted trial‑‑Accused remaining in jail as under‑trial prisoners and as convicts‑‑Sending accused back to jail after 8 years of their conviction, held, would not be desirable‑‑‑ Remaining sentence altered to fine.‑‑[Sentence].

Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa for Appellants.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 2nd July, 1985.

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Assistant Commissioner/ Magistrate Section 30, whereby he on 13‑6‑1977 convicted Muhammad Iqbal and 10 others under sections 307/34 and 342/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them as under:

It was directed that the sentences shall run consecutively. It was also directed that the fine when recovered, Rs.3,000 be paid as compensation to Muhammad Hanif complainant.

2. The prosecution case is that on 12‑7‑1973 at 6‑00 a.m. on the Lalkara raised by Ghulam Mustafa and Muhammad lqbal appellant, the other co‑accused took Hanif to the house of Ghulam Mustafa, locked the door from inside and caused injuries to him with sticks and hockeys. The alarm raised by him attracted Muhammad Rafiq and Muhammad Salim P.Ws. They found the door of the room locked. So they went on the roof of the adjoining house and tried to rescue the complainant. Mst. Rehmatay and Sakina also came from the side of the roof and tried to rescue Muhammad Hanif. Khurshid Ahmad, Amir and Syed Saqlain Shah also saw the occurrence. On hearing the alarm Asmatullah A.S.I. who was present nearby in the village came to the spot. He got the door opened and found Muhammad Hanif lying injured. The appellants were also present in that room.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined 8 witnesses. Dr. Muhammad Aslam P.W. 6 medically examined Muhammad Hanif P.W. He found 12 contusions on his person caused by blunt weapon, out of which 3 injuries were found grievous. The doctor also examined Abdul Hamid, Zafar Ali and Manzoor Masih appellants and found one simple injury caused by blunt weapon on each of them. Muhammad Hanif P.W.1, Mst. Rehmatay Bibi P.W. 2, Muhammad Rafiq P.W. 3, Saqlain Shah P.W. 4 and Khurshid Ahmad P.W. 5 have supported the prosecution case.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances. They did not produce any evidence in defence.

5. The trial Court while believing the ocular evidence has convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts; that the allegations that 11 appellants gave injuries to Muhammad Hanif P.W. appears to be false and that the eye‑witnesses could not have seen the occurrence. No one has appeared for State to oppose this appeal.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants with care. I feel persuaded to partly agree with him, inasmuch as Muhammad Hanif was injured inside the room; the room was bolted from inside at that time and as such there was no occasion for the alleged eye‑witnesses to see 11 appellants giving injuries to Muhammad Hanif P.W. The statement of Muhammad Hanif that he was injured by 11 appellants for half an hour stands belied by the number A of the injuries found on his person. The doctor had found 12 injuries on his person. Had the 11 appellants injured him in the manner as stated by him then the number of the injuries on his person should have been much more. For these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove offence under section 307/34, P.P.C. against the appellants. As far as the conviction of the appellants under section 342/34, P.P.C. is concerned I find that the statement of Muhammad Hanif finds support from the statement of Muhammad Saqlain Shah and Asmatullah A.S.I. The latter recovered Muhammad Hanif from a room bolted from inside where the appellants were found present. I do not see any reason to disbelieve them. Their statements do not suffer from any inherent infirmity. They are quite independent witnesses and as such no exception can be taken to the conviction of the appellants under section 342/34, P.P.C.

8. This brings me to the question of sentence. The learned counsel has requested for leniency. The appellants have been sentenced to one year's R.I. In the circumstances that the occurrence took place in the year 1973; that the appellants suffered agony of protracted trial; that they remained in jail as under trial prisoners and that they remained in jail as convicts, I am of the view that it would not be desirable to send them back to jail after 8 years of their conviction. Their remaining sentence is, therefore, altered to a fine of Rs.300 each in default thereof 3 months R.I. each. Resultantly, the appellants shall deposit Rs.3,300 with Judicial Magistrate, Ferozewala/Sheikhupura. In case the fine is not paid within a month, the Judicial Magistrate shall issue warrants for the arrest and detention of the appellants for serving out the sentence in default of payment of fine. When the fine is deposited, the learned Judicial Magistrate shall summon Muhammad Hanif complainant and pay him Rs.3,000 out of the same under intimation to Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court.

H. A. K. Appeal partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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