1992 PLP 1490 (MLD)

(4) Lacerated wound 3‑1/2" x 1" x wound deep on the mid‑head. He referred the injured for X‑Ray to Civil Hospital, Mirpurkhas. All the injuries appeared to have been caused by Lathi. He has produced the initial certificate as Exh.10‑A. He received X‑Ray plates from Mirpurkhas alongwith the report which showed that there was no fracture. He has produced the X -ray plates as Exh.10/B‑1 to Exh.10/B‑4, and thereafter he was of the opinion that the injuries were simple in nature, and issued such final certificate which he has produced as Exh.10‑C.

2. Skier Muhammad (Injured) (1) Lacerated wound 2" x 1" on the middle of head. (2) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" on middle of head, below injury No. 1. (3) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" on the left of the upper eyelid. (4) Contusion and swelling 2" x 2" on the right elbow joint. (5) Contusion 8" x 2" on the back of the chest on the right side. (6) Contusion 8" x 2" on the back chest on left side. The injuries appeared to have been caused by blunt substance such as Lathi: He referred the injured to Civil Hospital, Mirpurkhas for X‑Ray and has produced the initial medical certificate as Exh.10‑D. He received 2 X‑Ray plates alongwith the report of Radiologist on the cover, which he has produced as Exh.10/E‑1 and Exh.10/E‑

2. The report did not show that there was any fracture and, therefore, the injuries were simple in nature. He has produced the final certificate as Exh.10‑F. Dr. Abdul Hadi Khan, Court witness No. 1, has deposed that on 23‑1‑1975 he was police surgeon at Karachi. On that date, he Dr. M.SA. Farooqi, Dr. Muhammad Umer Khan, carried on post‑mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Umra son of Rabbi under the order of District Magistrate Karachi, the dead body of deceased was buried but it was exhumed at 11‑15 a.m. on 23‑7‑1974. The son and wife of deceased were present so also the Additional City Magistrate No.13, Mr. Allah Bachayo Memon, and S.H.O. Ferozabad Police Station. The body was identified by Muhammad Shall and Mst. Fatima the son and the wife of the deceased respectively. On external examination he found the following injuries on the person of deceased. (1) Contused abrasion on the back of the upper part of the right shoulder 1‑1/2" x 1‑1/2". (2) Partially healed wound on the back right side of head on the occipital region measuring 1‑1/2" x 1/6" x scalp deep forming a semi‑circular flap. (3) Healed wound on top of the head running backward 3" from the right Pinna, measuring backward 3" x 1/8". (4) Healed wound almost behind the injury No.3 extending from top to right side occipital region measuring 1/1‑2" x 1/8". There was no haemotoma, and there was no contusion either in the surrounding area or on the healed edge. Echomysis was present under the wounds. The above wounds were not bone deep. Injury No.1 could be due to impact with a hard and blunt object, while injuries Nos.2 to 4 appeared to have been caused by sharp‑edged heavy weapon like a light axe. In the opinion of the Medical Board, the above‑mentioned injuries on the person of the deceased were ante‑mortem in nature and that at the time of the post‑mortem examination it appeared that the death had occurred 4/6 days before. He has produced the carbon copy of the post‑mortem report as Exh.14/A, which bears his signatures. He has also produced the reports of the Pathologist and Biologsit, as Exhs.14‑B and 14‑C respectively, and final report as Exh.14‑D. Complainant Muhammad Shall P.W.1 has reiterated the facts before the Court which he had mentioned in his complaint. He is fully supported by P.Ws. Rehmat Ali, Abdur Rehman and Mst. Fatima. I have heard Mr. A.Q. Halepota, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned Additional Advocate‑General, appearing for the State, Mr. Muhammad Zahid Khan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, and have gone through the R&P of the case very carefully. It was contended by Mr..A.Q. Halepota, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the case was false and the learned trial Judge has erred in relying upon ocular evidence, which was interested and inimical. He has further contended that in the alternative, the appellants have suffered agony of protracted trial since 1974 and have remained in custody for few days after their conviction and, therefore, this Court may take lenient view against them. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned Additional A.‑G. appearing for the State has contended that no doubt the witnesses were inter‑related but from the record produced before the Court, it was clear that the complainant party was in possession of the disputed land and that the accused wanted to take forcible possession and had attacked the complainant party. That the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and the appellants were rightly convicted. However, he was also of the view that looking to the fact that the appellants have suffered agony of protracted trial since 1974, and have remained in jail for some days after their conviction, the substantive sentence may be reduced to one already undergone but the fine may be maintained. Mr. Muhammad Zahid Khan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has adopted the contentions raised by Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi. I have considered the contentions. The ocular evidence of complainant Muhammad Shafi and P.Ws. Rehmat Ali, Abdul Rehman, and Mst. Fatima appears to be natural and reliable. Their evidence has not been shaken in any way in spite of lengthy cross‑examination. No doubt they were related inter se; and to the deceased, but the incident was a broad daylight incident and it cannot be believed that they could spare the real culprits and involve innocent persons. I am fully convinced, that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and they were rightly convicted. However, I have given my anxious consideration to the question of sentence. Admittedly, the appellants have undergone agony of protracted trial since, 1974, and have remained in custody for some days after their conviction and, therefore, their substantive sentence is reduced to one already undergone. However, order regarding payment of compensation of Rs.1,000 each against appellants Bashir Ahmed and Muhammad Jamil is maintained, in default o payment of compensation appellants Bashir Ahmed and Muhammad Jamil shall suffer S.I. for six months each. The compensation if paid, shall be paid to the heirs of deceased Umra and Shera (since deceased). With the above modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed. I had decided the above appeal on 6‑10‑1991 by a short order and these are the reasons for the same. N.H.Q./M‑1606/K Sentence reduced.