1982 P Cr (PLP)

"Certified that Mr. Abdul Rauf son of Abdul Aziz aged about 18 years referred to me by Medical Supdt. Nishtar Hospital, Multan for expert opinion. Result is as under :‑ His left eye was operated for perforation. It is going into phthisis (shrinking) indicating that his left eye is lost. It is grievous injury. The certificate Exh. P. N. is to be excluded from consideration for the reason that the constable who was entrusted with summons for the service of Nazir Ahmad, having not been produced, the secondary evidence given by Dr. Mumtaz Hussain could not be allowed to prove, this certificate. Muhammad Basharat (P. W. 5) had investigated the case and challaned the accused. The other witnesses, more or less, were formal.

5. The appellants when examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. denied all the incriminating circumstances. They stated that Abdul Aziz, father of the complainant had taken Rs. 20,000 from Lal Din for giving the hand of his daughter to the son of Lal Din and when Lal Din demanded back the aforesaid amount, he was annoyed and got them falsely implicated. They produced Muhammad Rafiq (D. W. 1) in their evidence.

6. I have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the patties. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the following reasons : ‑ (i) that the eye‑witnesses, being real brothers inter se; are interested witnesses ; (ii) that no neighbour from the locality was attracted to the spot ; (iii) that the parents of the victim who were living at little distance. they, too, did not reach the spot immediately after the occurrence ; (iv) that against Ghulam Muhammad no motive has been disclosed in the F. I. R. and he has been falsely implicated ; and (v) that the story of the prosecution is not believable. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the appellants beyond shadow of doubt and that its evidence is worth reliance.

7. I have considered the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence in accordance 'with the rules laid down for the safe administration of justice in criminal cases, I find that the ocular evidence produced by the prosecution Inspires confidence. Abdul Rauf (P. W. 1) received as many as 23 injuries on his person and thus was in a position to identify his assailants. The appellants are closely related to him, being his maternal uncles. There was no defect in the identification. Abdul Shakoor (P. W. 2) and Abdul Rehman (P. W. 3) are the natural witnesses, the occurrence having taken place at 1.40 a. m. in a Baithak adjacent to their house where they were sleeping. Since the infliction of 23 injuries might have taken some time; therefore, their statements that on hearing alarm they reached the Baithak and saw the occurrence is in consonance with the probe. The witnesses have stood the test of crossexamination and their evidence materially fits in with the other evidence.' The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out P, any material contradiction or discrepancy in the statement of these eye‑witnesses. Abdul Rauf, the victim, has categorically stated that he was injured by the appellants and he stands corroborated by Abdul Shakoor and Rehman P. Ws. The number of the accused /appellants and the number of injuries do commensurate. The appellants have not been able to establish any enmity with the complainant or the witnesses and have failed to lay any foundation for substitution.

8. For the foregoing reasons, I believe the prosecution witnesses have considered the statement of Muhammad Rafiq (D. W.). He is resident of Faisalabad and was not present on the night of occurrence. He is real brother of Ghulam Muhammad appellant, and his sister is married with Lal Din appellant and the sister of Lal Din is his wife. He has stated that Abdul Aziz, father of Abdul Rauf, owed Rs. 20,000 to Lal Din and that one year before Lal Din had demanded back the same from him and for that reason Abdul Aziz had falsely implicated Lal Din appellant. The reason as stated by the witness for the false implication of Lal Din appellant does not appeal to reasonable mind.

9. The upshot of the discussion is that the conviction of the appellant under sections 307/34 and 452, P. P. C, is maintainable. However, in the circumstances of the case, their sentences are reduced. The appellants are sentenced to six years' R. I. each under section 307/34, 'P. P. C. and to two years' R. I. each under section 452, P. P. C. with the direction that both the sentences would run concurrently. The fine of Rs. 3o,000 awarded to each appellant is reduced to Rs. 10,000 each in default thereof further R. I. for one year each. The fine, if recovered, should be paid to Abdul Rauf as compensation. With this modification the appeal is dismissed. Order accordingly.