Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 1985, decided on 29th November, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 307/34‑‑Attempt to murder‑‑Nature of injuries‑‑Conviction of accused‑‑Reduction of sentence‑‑Some of injuries not inflicted by weapons alleged to have been used in offence‑‑Number and nature of injuries and fact that two of them were inflicted on head and on left chest which happened to be vital parts of body showed that view of Trial Court that offence was under S. 307/34 of P.P.C. was correct and thus, would not call for any interference Taking into consideration circumstances in which offence was committed and fact that accused had undergone agony, of protracted trial and detention as a convict for roughly sixteen months, High Court reduced sentence of imprisonment from seven to four years' R.I. but maintained amount of fine imposed by Trial Court.

Syed Ashiq Hussain Rizvi for Appellant.

Zafar yasin for the State.

Date of hearing: 29th November, 1986.

This is an appeal against the judgment of a Judicial Magistrate of Chiniot, dated 13‑7‑1985 convicting Maman, appellant, under section 307, P.P.C. and sentencing him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 or in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Three‑fourth of the fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to Allah Dad injured P.W. as compensation. The benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was also allowed to the appellant.

2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that on 22‑4‑1983 Allah Dad lodged a report with the police alleging therein that on that very day at about 9‑00 a.m. he was ploughing his field. His father Muhammad Khan and wife Mst. Jantan were cutting fodder nearby. The complainant left his plough and went to fetch the fodder. He saw Maman, accused, in the adjoining wheat crop, from whom he (complainant) had taken the land on tenancy. The complainant asked Maman, accused for the share of wheat crop, who refused and abused him. The complainant also paid him in the same coin. Maman, accused, went towards his Dera, after issuing threats. At about 10‑00 a.m. Maman, accused, armed with a Balum, Sarfraz accused, armed with a knife, Iqbal accused, armed with a hatchet, and Gehna accused, armed with a Phora, came there raising Lalkaras. Martian, accused gave a Balum blow to the injured, which hit near the ribs on the left side. His father and wife stepped forward to rescue him, but the accused threatened them with dire consequences. They did not get near out of fear. Iqbal accused gave two blows to the complainant from the blunt side of hatchet, which hit on his head, who fell down. Sarfraz accused, gave a knife blow on the left buttock. Gehna accused, gave a Phora blow, which hit him on the right elbow. Hearing the noise, Manzoor, Dost Muhammad, Hayat Khan and Ahmad Khan P.Ws. rushed to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. They saved the injured from the clutches of the accused.

3. I need not go into the merits of the case as Syed Ashiq Hussain Rizvi, Advocate for the appellant does not challenge the conviction of the appellant, but only prays for reduction of sentence. According to the learned counsel, Maman, appellant, is only alleged to have given one spear injury to Allah Dad, injured P.W., on the ribs on the left side of his chest, whereas the remaining four injuries were caused by lqbal, Sarfraz and Gehna accused, who were acquitted. It is also submitted that the case is not one falling under section 307/34, P.P.C. but one under section 324/34, P.P.C. On behalf of the State it is submitted that the number and nature of the five injuries on Allah Dad, injured P.W. clearly show that an attempt was made on the life of the said witness and even if it be held that injury No. 5 attributed to Maman, appellant, is not grievous, the case still falls under section 307/34, P.P.C.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. From the evidence of Dr Muhammad Dawood Khan P.W. 7, Allah Dad injured P.W., received two lacerated wounds on the head, alleged to be by a knife, one stab wound on the left chest, alleged to be by a spear, and an abrasion on the right forearem alleged to be by a Phora. Even assuming that some of the injuries were not inflicted by the weapons alleged to have been used, the number and nature of the same and the fact that two of them were inflicted on the head and on the left chest, which happen to be the vital parts of the body, the view of the trial Judge that the offence is one under section 307/34, P.P.C. appears to be correct and does not call for any revision.

5. This now leaves me with the question of sentence. The dispute leading to the assault appears to have arisen over a quarrel between Allah Dad inured P.W. and Maman, appellant, when the former asked the latter for his share of the wheat crop, which the latter refused. The appellant has undergone the agony of protracted trial and detention as a convict for roughly sixteen months. Taking all circumstances into consideration, I would reduce the sentence of Maman, appellant, from seven years' rigorous imprisonment to four years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant shall also pay a fine of Rupees ten thousand (Rs. 10,000) or, in default thereof, undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Three‑fourths of the fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Allah Dad injured by P.Ws. by way of compensation. The appellant shall also be entitled to the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C.

6. This appeal, therefore, partly succeeds in terms of reduction in the sentence, as stated above.

H.B.T./M‑33/L 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.