1990 PLP 197 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondent. Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr.P. No. 80/89). Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 20th May, 1989. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners in both t ese' petitions against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 4‑4‑1989, wherein, Sultan Sikandar and Sultan Maqsood accused petitioners in Cr. P.LA. No. 87‑R/89 were tried by a Magistrate under section 30, Chakwal for causing 10 injuries including one grievous injury with a sharp‑edged weapon to Muhammad Safdar complainant/ petitioner in Cr.` P.L.A. No. 80‑R/89 convicting them under section 326/34, P.P.C. and sentenced each of them to four years' R.I.with fine of Rs.5,000. each, or in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. each for six months. Half of the fine on realization was ordered to be paid to the injured Safdar, vide order dated 24‑3‑1987. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal maintained the conviction and sentence of Sultan Sikandar under section 326, P.P.C. and modified the conviction of Sultan Maqsood to that of under section 323, P.P.C. and reduced his sentence to six months' R.I. Both the accused petitioners were also given the, benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. The revision petition of the complainant party for enhancement of the sentence of both the accused was however, dismissed, vide order dated 4‑7‑1987. Against the said appellate order both the ac used riled Criminal Revision No.88 of 1987 and Muhammad Safdar complainant filed Criminal Revision No.30 of 1988 before the Lahore High Court. Rawalpindi Bench. A learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the revision petitions vide his judgment dated 4‑4‑1989 dismissed the Revision Petition No.30/88 of the complainant in limine and concluded Revision Petition No.88/87 filed by the accused petitioners as under: "The upshot is that the revision petition filed by the convicts against their conviction has no force and is dismissed. Sultan Sikandar petitioner gave a sharp‑edged grievous injury to the complainant and did not repeat the same. Thus in the circumstances the sentence of four years' R.I. seems to be excessive. The same is reduced to two years, R.I. with the fine already imposed. The fine if deposited, shall be paid to Muhammad Safdar complainant as compensation. Sultan Maqsood is also guilty of the offence under section 324/34, P.P.C. but he gave only a simple stick blow to the complainant and thus the sentence awarded to him by the learned appellate Court i.e. six months, R.I. seems to be proper." We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and have gone through the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr.P.L.A. No.87‑R/R9 tried to argue that it was a free right as admitted by the appellate Court and the accused petitioner No.l had received injuries in the same fight, in which the complainant took the initiative as he came to the place of occurrence at the late hours of night, which confirms his aggression and no offence under section 326, P.P.C. was made out. The medical evidence shows that Sultan Sikandar accused petitioner had total six injuries on his person. According to the doctor injuries Nos. 4‑6 were no injuries at all, injuries Nos.1‑3 were only scratches not caused by stick blow and only injur` No.5 was a very simple one. All the injuries were of the duration of 2 to 7 days. This fact finds corroboration from the statements of the complainant and Haji Amir Khan (PW‑3) who deposed that no injury was caused to the petitioner during the occurrence. On the other hand Sultan Sikandar accused petitioner has caused one single grievous injury to the complainant Muhammad Safdar with a sharp‑edged weapon without repeating such blows with the same weapon. We think that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has rightly appreciated this fact and reduced his sentence to two years, R.1. Maqsood Sikandar accused petitioner No.2 was attributed only stick blows to have delivered to the complainant, therefore the sentence of six months awarded to him under section 324/34, P.P.C. also seems to be quite in order. Under the circumstances and facts of the case we are of the opinion that the findings of the learned High Court in both the matters are in accordance with the safe administration of criminal justice and does not warrant any interference by this Court. The result is that both these petitions having no merit, are dismissed. M.A.K./S‑456/S Petitions dismissed.