1991 PCr (PLP)

Manik, Zafar and Ghulam, petitioners, stand convicted under section 325/34, P.P.C. for injuries including grievous injuries to Azhar Mehdi P.W.4, and sentenced to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.400 each. It was directed that they shall also pay Rs.400 each as compensation to the injured P.W. or in default thereof three months' R.I. each.

2. To prove its case prosecution produced 5 witnesses. Dr. Muhammad Afzal P.W.3, examined Azhar Mehdi P.W. He found 17 injuries on his person. Azhar Mehdi P.W.4 stated that Manik and Zafar armed with sticks and Ghulam armed with hatchet launched attack on him and caused him injuries. Abdul Wahid and Qadir Bakhsh are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, they have supported the prosecution case.

3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioners denied all incriminating circumstances. They raised the plea of grave and sudden provocation. Their case was that Ghulam on seeing Muhammad Azhar Mehdi in objectionable condition with his wife Mst. Azmat attacked and injured him. In defence 4 witnesses including Mst. Azmat were produced.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the eye-witnesses are not reliable; that Azhar Mehdi had illicit relations with Mst. Azmat and had once abducted her and that the occurrence took place in the manner as stated by Ghulam petitioner, Learned counsel for the State has supported the conviction and sentence of the petitioners.

5. I have considered the matter carefully. Admittedly Azhar Mehdi had illicit relations with Mst. Azmat and the relations between the parties were strained. Abdul Wahid and Qadir Bakhsh eye-witnesses are paternal uncle and private servant, respectively, of Azhar Mehdi P.W. No independent person has been produced by the prosecution. In view of the background of this occurrence, the rule of prudence requires independent corroboration of the statements made by the eye-witnesses qua each petitioner, which I do not see in the case in hand. There was delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R., so the possibility of consultation and exaggeration of number of accused/persons cannot be excluded. For these reasons, I feel that the conviction of Manik and Zafar cannot be sustain, so while giving them the benefit of doubt, they are acquitted of the charge.

6. As for Ghulam, I find that he has admitted to have injured the Azhar Mehdi P.W. on seeing him in objectionable condition with his wife at Chah Sarangwala. In view of the admitted position that Mst. Azmat the wife of Ghulam had illicit relations with Azhar Mehdi P.W., the possibility of the defence version being true cannot be excluded, so I hold that the offence committed by Ghulam was not punishable under seciton 325, P.P.C. so his conviction under this section is set aside, instead he is convicted under section 335, P.P.C.

7. This brings me to the question of sentence. The occurrence took place in the year 1980, the petitioner was sent to jail thrice that after the rejection of his appeal he remained in jail for one month and 20 days before he could be released on bail by this Court in this revision. Furthermore, Azhar Mehdi himself had invited the trouble. He in fact had forced the petitioner to attack and injure him. In these circumstances, I feel that the agony of protracted trial coupled with the imprisonment already served by him (Ghulam) as an undertrial prisoner and as convict would meet the case. Disposed of accordingly. SA./M-2956/L Order accordingly.