1994 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 19th December, 1992. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 15-11-1992 passed by Mian Abdul Latif, Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, who dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the petitioners against the order, dated 30-3-1991 of Mr. Muhammad Shahid Javaid, Magistrate 1st Class, Toba Tek Singh whereby he convicted the petitioners under section 452/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 2 years each, and under section 323/34, P.P.C. to suffer R.I. for 6 months each.

2. Briefly the prosecution case is that Peer Bakhsh (P.W.1) had lodged an F.I.R. Exh.P.A. on 16-6-1989 to the effect that on 9-6-1989 at about 8/9-00 a.m. he was present in his house when the petitioners Chiragh armed with Sota, Ramzan armed with hatchet and Liaqat armed with hatchet reached to their Dhari and after scaling over the wall entered the house. Petitioner Chiragh raised Lalkara that they would teach a lesson to Allah Yar P.W. for obtaining stay but Allah Yar P.W. had gone to Layyah and Mst. Kaniz Fatima (P.W.4) was present in the house. Muhammad Ramzan inflicted hatchet blow from the wrong side on her left side cheek and second blow was given by Liaqat petitioner on her head. The third Sota blow was given by Chiragh on the left foot. The niece of the, complainant Mst. Hafeezan (P.W.5) protested, on which Chiragh petitioner also inflicted blow on the left side of her neck. The second hatchet blow was given from the reverse side by Liaqat petitioner on Mst. Hafeezan which hit on her left shin. The third hatchet blow from the wrong side was caused by Ramzan petitioner which landed on her right side of the shoulder. Thereafter Chiragh petitioner also inflicted blow on the right side of her chest. On hue and cry of Mst. Kaniz Fatima (P.W.4), Mst. Jannat Bibi wife of Peer Bakhsh complainant (P.W.2) and Mst. Nasrin Akhtar (P.W.3) while witnessing the occurrence beseeched the petitioners and got them released.

3. The motive behind the occurrence was that the complainant were three brothers and their father had given 2 acres of land. Chiragh petitioner forcibly wanted to take possession and after making mutual consultation all the three petitioners had made a murderous assault. The petitioners were challaned and sent up for trial, where a charge under sections 452/34 and 323/34, P.P.C. was framed to which they denied and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined 8 P.Ws. in all to establish its case. P.W.1 Peer Bakhsh complainant narrated the facts mentioned by him in the F.I.R. Exh.PA. P.W.2 Mst. Jannat Bibi is the eye-witness who while witnessing the occurrence beseeched the petitioners and separated them. P.W.3 Mst. Nasrin Akhtar is also the eye-witness who corroborated the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also stated about infliction of injuries by the petitioners, on P.W.4 and P.W.5. P.W.4 Mst. Kaniz Fatima is an injured witness who corroborated the statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and also stated that her husband was not present at the relevant time when the petitioners armed with their respective weapons after scaling over the wall entered her house illegally and inflicted injuries on her person. P.W.5 Mst. Hafizan was present in the house at the relevant time. She was also an injured witness. She corroborated the statements of P.Ws. l, 2, 3 and

4. P.W.6 Fazal Ahmad is the Investigating Officer, who also arrested the petitioners. P.W.7 Dr. Safdar Hussain medically examined Mst. Kaniz Fatima and had found 5 injuries on her person and had advised X-ray. P.W.7 also medically examined Mst. Hafeezan and found 4 injuries on her person. All the injuries sustained by the two injured were declared simple. P.W.8 Muhammad Iqbal, M.H.C. had drafted the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A. on the statement of P.W.1.

5. The petitioners when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence against them. They neither made statement on oath as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced defence evidence.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State at length and have perused the record. The injured P.Ws. had received simple injuries at the hands of the petitioners. The petitioners although raised the plea of false implication in the present case, but had not cared to produce evidence in defence, nor they made statements on oath. It was also contended that the Investigating Officer (P.W.6) Fazal Ahmad was not cross-examined by the defence. It is pertinent to mention here that the defence was given many opportunities to cross-examine the P.Ws., but the defence had not availed the same. Last but not the least it was argued that no offence under section 452/34 was made out against the petitioners as they are residents of the same Haveli where the occurrence took place. I am afraid nothing has been brought on record by the defence to substantiate the same.

7. Pursuant to the above discussion, I am of the view that the petitioners were rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for leniency in the matter of sentence. The case was registered against the petitioners on 16-6-1989 with a delay of 7 days in lodging the F.I.R. The petitioners were apprehended on 23-6-1989 and were released on bail by the trial Court on the third day of their arrest. They were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court on 30-3-1991 and their sentence was suspended by the appellate Court. On the dismissal of their criminal appeal they were again sent to jail on 15-11-1992 and since then they are in the jail. The petitioners remained behind the bar as convicts/prisoners for a period of about 2 months. The parties are closely related to each other. I am of the view that the sentence already undergone as convicts and under trials shall meet the ends of justice. Order accordingly. The petitioners shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. N.H.Q./C-13/L Sentence reduced.