1992 P Cr (PLP)

This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 30‑10‑1990 passed by Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad, whereby he convicted the appellants under section 307/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to 7 years' R.I. each with a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default in payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 6 months. In case of realization of fine, rupees five thousand were ordered to be paid to the injured. Benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was also accorded to the appellants. Facts in brief are that an F.I.R. No.316 was recorded at the instance of Muhammad Ramzan under section 307/325/34, P.P.C. on 30‑11‑1988 for an occurrence stated to have taken place on 23‑11‑1988. It was the case of the prosecution that the appellants armed with Dangs caused injuries to the complainant's father Manzoor P.W., who suffered the following 6 injuries on his person:‑‑‑ "(1) A lacerated wound about 3 cm. x 2 c.m. x bone deep on the inner side mid of the left leg. (2) A lacerated wound 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep in front of the left leg about 4 c.m. below the injury No.1. (3) A lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep in front of the mid of the right leg. (4) A lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep in front of right leg 10 c.m. above the ankle joint. (5) A contused swelling with abrasion surrounding the whole left eye with redness of the conjuctive. (6) A contusion 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the inner side of the right upper arm." The motive according to the prosecution was that the injured P.W. was a witness in a case F.I.R. No.94/86 registered under section 364, P.P.C. which was pending against the appellants before the Session Court at Faisalabad. The appellants were pressurising/asking the injured not to appear as a witness and on his refusal they launched murderous assault on him resulting in the aforementioned injuries. After usual investigation the challan was submitted. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses to establish its case. The ocular account in this case has been established in its material particulars by Manzoor (P.W.3) injured witness, Ramzan (P.W.4) and Nazeer (P.W.5). Lady Doctor Samia Akbar appeared as P.W.1 and has stated that she examined the injured Manzoor on 23‑11‑1988 and found the aforestated injuries out of which 4 were of grievous nature. She further stated that on 27‑11‑1988 after examining the X‑Ray report of the injured she declared injuries Nos.1 to 4 grievous while rest of the two injuries were declared simple. Learned counsel for the appellants has pressed his appeal on the sole ground that since the Radiologist was not examined who took the X‑Ray films of the injured as such the conviction could only have been recorded under section 323, P.P.C. He has placed reliance upon Muhammad Akbar and another v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 2634, Nusrat v. The State 1991 P Cr. L J 1621 and Muhammad Hussain and 4 others v. The State and another 1991 P Cr. L J 1081. Apart from this argument the learned counsel for tile appellants has not raised any other point. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the judgment and evidence on record. Lady Doctor Samia Akhar, who appeared as P.W.1 initially examined the in injured Manzoor Ahmad on 23‑11‑1988 and found 6 injuries on his person mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Later, on 27‑11‑1988 on the basis of X‑Ray film report, she declared 4 injuries which were fractures of fibula and tibia respectively as grievous. This report Exh.P.B. alongwith 4 X‑Ray films of the injured are on the record. Simply 'because the Radiologist has not appeared, these multiple fractures in the presence of X‑Ray report cannot be declared simple. Moreso; when the veracity of X‑Ray films is not under question. Not a single question was put to P.W.1 Dr. Samia Akbar to doubt her stance qua the injuries. Furthermore, it is evident from the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the injured had become permanently crippled and could not be in a position to walk for all his life. It had also been mentioned that during the trial even after the lapse of two years, he was brought to the Court on cot and was still under treatment. Keeping all the aforestated features of the case into consideration these injuries in these circumstances cannot be termed as simple, only on the ground that the Radiologist has not come forward. Resultantly, I do not find any force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. SA./N‑19/L ??????????? Appeal dismissed.