1989 P Cr (PLP)

(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑S. 325/34‑‑Nature of offence‑‑Radiologist not produced to prove X‑Ray report regarding nature of injury‑‑Conviction under S. 325/34, P.P.C. held, could not be sustained‑‑Conviction altered to one under Ss. 323 & 324/34, P.P.C. in circumstances. Qazi Khalil Ahmad for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Malik M.H. Zaffar Misson for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 6th February, 1989. Rashid Ahmad and three others, petitioners were tried by learned Magistrate 1st Class, Ahmadpur East, under section 325/34 P.P.C. for causing grievous injury to Fazal Karim P.W. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, prosecution produced five witnesses. Fazal Karim P.W.1, Khalid P.W. 2, Maqbool P.W. 3 have given the ocular account of the occurrence. Fazal Karim stated that the petitioners had not only launched attack on him, but had actually caused injuries to him with various weapons. Khalid P.W.2 and Maqbool P.W. 3 supported his statement. Dr. Ahmad Nawaz Bhatti P.W.4 had medically examined Fazal Karim. He found three injuries on his person, out of which injury No.2 found on the back of the hand was declared grievous and the rest as simple. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by blunt weapons whereas injury No.3 was caused by sharp‑edged weapon. Muhammad Siddiq A.S.I. had investigated the case. In their statements recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied all the incriminating circumstances and raised plea of false implication. In defence they produced Haji Raziq Bakhsh D.W. who stated that due to land dispute the petitioners were involved falsely. The trial Court convicted the petitioners on 21‑2‑1984 and sentenced them to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default thereof two months' R.I. The appeal filed by the petitioners against conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, on 11‑7‑1985, hence this revision.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Radiologist was not produced to prove the X‑ray report; the eye‑witnesses are interested and inimical and there are contradictions and discrepancies in their statements. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant has supported the judgment of the trial Court. No one has appeared for the State to oppose this petition.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that Khalid P.W. 2 is an absolutely dependable witness. He is neither related to the complainant nor inimical towards the petitioners. He has faced the test of cross‑examination successfully. The statement made by him is in consonance with the probabilities and materially fits in with the rest of evidence. So conviction can safely be sustained on his statement. Fazal Karim P.W. and Maqbool P.W.3 had no serious enmity with the petitioners. The medical evidence shows that Fazal Karim had suffered injuries caused by blunt and sharp- edged weapons. This shows that more than one person had participated in the occurrence. Learned counsel has not been able to point out material discrepancies, major contradictions or dishonest improvements in the statements of the eye‑witnesses. The defence evidence is not sufficient enough to rebut prosecution case. So there remains no doubt that Fazal Karim was attacked and inured by the petitioners. Despite aforesaid observations I feel inclined to give benefit of doubt to Faiz Ahmad and Siraj Ahmad petitioners as a matter of abundant caution. They were empty handed. Had there been common intention on their part to cause injuries to Fazal Karim they would have armed themselves with some weapon. I feel that in the circumstances of the case, it is not in consonance with the safe administration of justice in criminal cases, to uphold their conviction. They are, therefore, acquitted of the charges. They are on bail; they stand discharged of the bail‑bonds.

4. Now I proceed to determine the criminal liability of Rashid Ahmad and Shabbir Ahmad for causing grievous injury to Fazal Karim P.W.1. I find that the Radiologist has not been produced to prove X‑Ray examination, so their conviction under section 325/34 P.P.C. cannot be maintained. The same, is therefore, set aside. Instead they are convicted under section 324/323/34, P.P.C.

5. This brings me to the question of sentence. The occurrence took place about 7 years back. The petitioners were convicted by the trial Court on 21‑2 1984. Their bail was dismissed on 11‑7‑1985. They have remained in jail from time to time. In these circumstances, I feel that sentence of fine only will meet the ends of justice. They are, therefore, sentenced to a fine of Rs.10,000 in default thereof 6 months' R.I. each. They will deposit fine by 5‑3‑1989 in the Court of learned A.C. Ahmadpur East. The fine if deposited will be paid to Fazal Karim injured P.W. as compensation. In case, the fine is not paid within time, the learned Assistant Commissioner, Ahmadpur East, will get them arrested and sent to jail to serve the sentence. S.A./R‑135/L Sentence reduced.