1984 P Cr (PLP)

This is an appeal by appellants (1) Jehan Khan son of Lai, (2) Kalu son of Ghulam Qadir, (3) Ghulam Qadir son of Mehnda, (4) Bashir son of Ghulam Qadir, (5) Nabi Bakhsh "sorr of Rehmat and (6) Gal son of Allah Ditta, Jats, resident of Benipur, P.S. Jalalpur Jattan, District Gujrat, against their convictions under five heads, namely, sections 148/ 307/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149, P.P.C., as recorded by Sh. Anwar Latif, Magistrate Section 30 Gujrat, in his judgment dated 30-12-1968. They were each awarded under each head, respectively R. I. for one year, five years, two years, one year and six months, all running con currently.

2. The occurrence took place on 3-11-1967 at sunset when allegedly, the appellants assaulted the informant Jalal Khan, Ali Ahmed, Nazir Ahmed and Khan Muhammad P.Ws. in order to forcibly take away from them a piece of land which they had probably got under a mortgage twenty years ago. Jehan Khan had a Barcchi Kalu Kulhari and others Sotas with which they caused injuries to them. However, one of them namely Lai also sustained injuries in return Muhammad Nazir and Ahmad Din P.Ws. were attracted to see it. All the injured were taken to the hospital, Jalalpur Jattan where Jalal Khan made statement Ext. P.A before the police officer next morning at about 4 a.m.

3. They had number of injuries of both types including fracture of Jalal's left forearm and of skull of Ali Ahmad. Conversely Lai Khan appellant sustained among five injuries, a fracture of his left ring finger.

4. The appellants, excepting Lai Khan, pleaded innocence and absence from the locale. Lai Khan explained that he had incurred displeasure of the informant in having brought against him. a petition for redemption of the land that he alongwith his associates caused him injuries and that in their defence they caused them also slight injuries. He further disclosed that the P.Ws. in the melee incidentally fell on fodder-machine and thereby sustained injuries. They examined two witnesses in defence in support of their version. They owned to have had caused some injuries to the P.Ws. in defence of Lai appellant, while others were ascribed to their having fallen upon the fodder machine.

5. The occurrence took place more than 16 years ago and the appellants remained in jail for more than 3 years including the period of trial'. 1976 P Cr. L J 623 and 1983 P Cr. L J 284 were cited to urge that detention already undergone by the appellants being a little more than 3 years was quite adequate punishment for them and that to commit them again to prison after such a long period of liberty will in fact be not only against their normal expectations but also detrimental to the parties' relations, as it will resuscitate enmity between them.

6. Counsel for the State did not seriously oppose the prayer. The record shows that the appellants were in jail during trial which lasted for a year and they were allowed bail in appeal by this Court after they had suffered further detention of two years and three months. Thus all-told, their detention was more than three years and by all means sufficient to meet the ends of justice. There is point in urging that to recommit them after sixteen years of the occurrence was bound to have its own repercussions deteriorating the parties' relations inter se vis-a-vis the tranquillity achieved over years.

7. Merits need not be discussed in detail as counsel in a way accepted the convictions. Suffice it to say that it was a broad-day occurrence injuring four persons including the informant. Some of the injuries were grievous and the motive also lay on the appellants' side as it was their land which the complainant was not willing to part with. To say that he was making an exception to the appellant Lai's application for redemption of his land was not much inspiring. At least two of the eye-witnesses were not at all cross-examined and there is no explanation for this omission. The number of injuries sustained by the P.Ws. was quite proportionate to the number of appellants (6) who had various weapons including a Barchha and a hatchet. To explain the injuries caused to Ali Ahmad by showing that he had fallen on a fodder-machine, was indeed an apology, It was highly preposterous to say that he or other P.Ws. had, one after the other, been falling on the fodder-machine, as if it was magnetically attracting them to fall on it.

8. Equally was uninspiring the plea that appellant Lai alone was attacked by all the four injured P.Ws. and that he was helped by D.Ws. who went to the extent of inflicting upon the P.Ws. as many injuries. Inciden tally, no injury was sustained by D.Ws. themselves. If Lai was hit, they too should have received at least some injuries. They claimed to be busy in nearby fields, obviously without any weapons. Where they got those from to apply to as many P.W., was in itself enigmatic. One of them was 8 related to Lai appellant. The plea of the remaining appellants that they were not present at the locale was only a subterfuge not correlated with the facts. How was Barchha thrusted into the brain of Ali Ahmad was not adequately accounted for. The corollary was that it had been used by none-else than the appellant Jehan Khan and so on and so forth. These broad features make one convinced that the appellants were the assailants and they had caused injuries to the P.Ws.

9. As a result, the, convictions of the appellants are upheld. The appeal is, however, accepted only to the extent of reducing their sentences to the period already undergone. M. Y. H. Appeal partly accepted.