1995 PLP 1207 (MLD)

(1) Bashir alias Kaka under section 337‑F(vi) to three years' R.I. and to pay Daman of Rs. 5,000 to the injured P. W., or in default to undergo six months' S.I. (2) Niaz Ali under section 337‑F(i) to one year's R.I. and to pay Daman of Rs. 2,000 to the injured P. W. or in default further S.I. for three months. (3) Muhammad Rafiq under section 337‑F(iii) to two years' R.I. and to pay Daman of Rs. 3,000 to the injured P. W. or in default to further S.I. for four months. The convicts appealed to the Sessions Court, which failed and was dismissed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwah, vide judgment dated 10‑1‑1994; hence the present revision petition.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that Muhammad Rafiq complainant owned land in Chak No. 5/DB. Allah Rakha injured P. W. is his relative as well as tenant. He had sown Jawar (maize) crop in the land of the complainant. To irrigate the crop, the complainant demanded water from the turn of Nemat Ali. Allah Rakha P. W. started irrigating the land. Muhammad Rashid, brother of the complainant, was also there. It is alleged that on the fateful day at about 4‑30 a.m. Muhammad Rafiq petitioner armed with a Kassi, his brother Bashir and Niaz Ali appeared at the scene. They wanted to cut and divert the water. Allah Rakha objected to it, whereupon Muhammad Rafiq caused injury with Kassi on the left arm of Allah Rakha, Bashir caused an injury with hatchet from the wrong side on his left elbow. Niaz Ali is alleged to have caused an injury with Sota on the back of Allah Rakha. The acquitted accused also duly armed with different weapons came there to help their co‑accused. They, however, did not cause any injury to, the victim. The occurrence was witnessed by the complainant and Muhammad Rashid (given up witness).

3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined seven witnesses. Muhammad Rafiq P. W. 1 and Allah Rakha gave the ocular evidence. Dr. Safdar Khan Kundi (P. W.3) examined the victim and found four injuries on his person. Sher Muhammad S.I. (P. W.5) conducted the investigation. The evidence of the remaining witnesses is of formal character.

4. The petitioners in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and professed innocence. They stated that the complainant party attacked them and injured Niaz Ali petitioner and they have been involved falsely in this case. The petitioners produced Nemat Ali as D.W.1, who deposed that he gave his turn of water for two hours to Bashir and none else.

5. I have heard the learned counsel at length, but he has failed to point out any misreading of evidence or material discrepancy in the evidence of Allah Rakha injured P. W.2. He has fully implicated the petitioners. The occurrence took place in day time, so there could not be any doubt about the identification of the petitioners. The evidence of Allah Rakha is fully corroborated by Muhammad Rafiq complainant P. W.1 and is in line with the medical evidence. The view of the evidence taken by the lower Courts cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. There is concurrent finding of fact by the lower Courts and in revisional jurisdiction, this Court can only interfere if the findings are based on conjectures or surmises or there is some legal flaw, which has prejudiced the case of the accused, which is lacking in the present I case.

6. The only objection feebly taken by the learned counsel is that the Investigating Officer was not examined and the evidence of Nemat Ahmad D.W.1 was not properly appreciated. I have gone through the evidence of Sher Muhammad, S.I. P. W.5, who investigated the case. This point was not taken before the lower Courts. Even otherwise it has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners. The evidence of Nemat Ali D. W. that he allowed Bashir, one of the petitioners to use his turn of water for two hours is not helpful to the defence because the ocular version is getting ample support from the medical evidence, as observed by the Courts below. I find no substance in this petition, which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-1962/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision petition dismissed.