Find a Lawyer

---S. 307--Intention to kill--Injuries not of serious nature--Accused not causing deeper or deadly blows--Intention to be gathered only from external acts--Had accused intended to take life of injured then he would have easily inflicted deeper and deadly blows upon injured which he did not do--Offence' under section 307 in circumstances, held, not made out--Accused found -guilty under section 324, P.P.C., and sentence reduced from three years' R.I. to one year and three months.

Ch. Abdul Hafeez Malik for Petitioner.

Mirza Farrakh Aftab for the State.

Muhammad Khalid son of Muhammad Sadiq caste Chacher Arain resident of Basirpur, tehsil Depalpur, district Sahiwal was tried and co,1victed by Mr.Munir Mubarak Magistrate Section 30, Okara, under section 307, P.p.C., vide his order, dated 29-9-1981 whereby he was sentenced to 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 6 months and in that event both the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. The appeal filed by him against his conviction and sentence was dismissed vide learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal's order, dated -2-1982. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision Petition

2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to this case are that on 9-1-1979 Akbar Ali complainant (P.W.1) and his brother Ghulam Sarwar injured (P.W.2) were sitting in their shop when Muhammad Khalid, petitioner, came and sat with them. After a while he left their shop. A little after his departure, a customer came to the shop of the complainant for purchasing nails. When he weighed the nails he detected that three weights of his shop were missing. The complainant suspected Muhammad Khalid, petitioner, for having stolen away the said weights. On the next day, that is, 10-1-1979, at about 8/9 a.m., both Akbar Ali and Ghulam Sarwar went to Muhammad Sadiq, father of the petitioner, and complained that Muhammad Khalid, petitioner, had stolen away their weights. On this complaint, he called his son (Muhammad Khalid), abused and slapped him. The petitioner allegedly challenged the complainant and his brother that he would avenge his insult. At about 11.00 a.m., the same day, the petitioner went to the shop of Ghulam Sarwar, (P.W.2) and having taken out a dagger from the fold of his Shalwar, attacked him and gave three successive injuries on his neck. He raised alarm which attracted Wazir (P.W.3 ) and Bashir Ahmad (P.W.8) and they witnessed the occurrence The. petitioner, thereafter, made good his escape. Ghulam Sarwar, injured (P.W.2) was removed to the hospital where he was examined, by Dr. Abdul Rauf Bhatti, (P.W. 7) who found 3 injuries on his neck region and issued medico-legal report which is Exh.P.E. He ultimately declared all the injuries to be simple in nature vide his report Exh.P.E. /1.

3. Akbar Ali (P.W.1) lodged his report with police which is Exh. P. A., at about evening time. The case was investigated by Muhammad Sher S:I.(P.W.10) who took into possession blood-stained shirt P.1 of the injured P.W. and made it into a sealed parcel, vide memo. Exh. P. B. He also prepared the site plan Exh. P. F. According to him on 18-1-1979, he arrested the petitioner and on his personal search recovered a dagger P.2 which was seized, vide memo. Exh. P. C. attested by Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) and Ramzan (P.W.5). At last the petitioner was challaned.

4. Ghulam Sarwar, the injured witness (P.W.2) was not cross examined. He was recalled by an order of the trial Court. However, he died during the pendency of the case and, therefore, he was not cross-examined.

5. The prosecution version as given out by Ghulam Sarwar, injured (P.W. 2) was supported at the trial by Akbar Ali (P.W. 1), Wazir (P. W. 3) and Bashir Ahmad (P.W.8). The recovery of dagger P.2 was proved by Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) and Ramzan (P.W.5). Both the learned Courts below having satisfied that the petitioner was responsible for causing injuries to Ghulam Sarwar (P.W.2) with a dagger, held him guilty under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced him to 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000, as described earlier.

6. I have heard learned counsel fox the petitioner as well as for the State and with their assistance, I have perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly conceded that the evidence on record has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the petitioner who had attacked Ghulam Sarwar with dagger P.2 and caused injuries on his neck. Therefore, he has submitted that he does not challenge the occurrence. He, however, argued that keeping in view the nature of the injuries being simple, the conviction of the petitioner under section 307, P.P.C. cannot be sustained.

According to him, Dr. Abdul Rauf Bhatti MW 7) did not opine that the injuries of Ghulam Sarwar were dangerous to life or that sufficient internal damage had been caused to the victim so as to pose any danger to his life.

8. I have carefully considered the medical evidence on record and I find that the injuries suffered by Ghulam Sarwar (P.W.2) were not of serious nature and, therefore, he cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the petitioner intended to cause the death of Ghulam Sarwar. Intention as it is said is a state of mind which is not ordinarily ascertainable. "The thought of a man," therefore, "is not triable because even the devil knoweth not the thought of man". The intention is to be gathered or inferred only from external acts and, therefore, it is very necessary to examine the act itself committed by the person accused of that act. I am,' therefore, satisfied in my own mind that had the petitioner intended to take the life of the injured than he would have easily inflicted deeper and deadly blows upon the injured which he did not do.

9. For these reasons, therefore, I hold that an offence under section 307, P.P.C. is not made out. Rather the petitioner is guilty of committing an offence under section 324, P.P.C. and in these circumstances I would reduce the sentence imposed upon the petitioner from 3 years and a fine of Rs.1,000, 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 3) months.

10. With these modifications, the revision petition is dismissed.

S.A. 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.