1984 P Cr (PLP)

The appellants above-named being aggrieved by a judgment dated 29th November, 1974 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, in Sessions Case No.227/1971 by which the appellants were convicted under section 324/34 P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year, and under section, 326/34 and sentenced to suffer R.1. for two years, each, and to pay a fine of Rs.500 each or in default to suffer further R.I. for three months, have preferred the above appeal, on the following facts and grounds.

2. That the prosecution case briefly stated was that the complainant Wali Muhammad cultivated the land of one Bachu Muhajir situated in Deh Puravo Miral, which the acquitted accused Jhando had about one year earlier purchased from the said Bachu Mohajir- and he had also infromed the complainant that the accused party would cultivate the land during that year. the prosecution case further is that the said accused Jhando had also forbidden the complainant from cultivating the said land but the complainant had told him that he was the cultivator of that land since last so many years. It is alleged that the complainant Wali Muhammad had then moved an application before Mukhtlarkar, Thul in this connection and that Mukhtiarkar Thul had called both the parties on 10th June, 1970 and prohibited them form cultivatinig the said land till final decision of the matter.

3. That according to the prosecution the complainant Wali Muhammad had on 10th June, 1970 seen the two fertilizer in the disputed land and that on this issue both parties started fighting with the result, that the acquitted accused Jhando and Khan Jan were alleged to have fired guns at the complainant Wali Muhammad and his son Saindad, which hit on the leg of the complainant only and that as statetd by the prosecution witness, the four above appellants caused simple and grevious injuries to the P.Ws. Saindad, Wali Muhammad Sono, Ghulam Qadir and Baggan.

4. That according to the prosecution the two acquitted accused, alongwith the four above-named appellant had formed unlawful assembly and committed rioting duly armed with guns and hatchets, and that the acquitted accused Jhando and Khan Jan had fired at the complainant party with guns with the intention of killing them and which hit the complainant in his leg.

5. That all the six accused persons were committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jacobabad for offence under section 307/148/149, P.P.C, but after recording the evidence the learned trial Court was pleased to acquit the two gunmen Jhando and Khan Jan, but convicted the four appellants and punished them as described above.

6. That the prosecution had examined Mr. Muhammad Hayat Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M. Thul, (Exh.4), Hazar Khan Mashir (Exh.6), Sanwelo Mashir (Exh.8), Ghulam Rasool Mashir (Exh.14), Wali Muhammad complainant (Exh.18), Sono injured P.W. (Exh.22), Saindad injured P.W. (Exh.24), Ghulam Qadir injured P.W. (Exh.28), Baggan injured P.W. (Exh.33), Mr. Abdul Hameed incharge of H.C. Police Station Thul and Investigating Officer (Exh.35), Doctor Muhammad Hashim who had examined the injured P-Ws- (Exh.38) and the lower Court deposition of this doctor relating to the injuries of the accused has been brought on record of trial Court from the learned enquiry Court (Exh.49).

7. That the learned trial Court taking into the consideration the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted the appellants above-named as hereinabove mentioned and consequently the appellants have filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in the memo. of appeal. The learned Advocate of the appellants had at outset submitted that he was pressing the above appeal only in respect of the sentences awarded to the appellants on the following grounds: (a) That although appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were armed with hatchets, injuries attributed to these appellants were simple injuries and consequently when the two acquitted accused, who were armed with guns have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, the sentences awarded to the appellants are rather harsh, especially as there was sudden quarrel over land dispute between the parties. (b) That the incident relates to 10th June, 1970 and the appellants have undergone misery of trial and have further remained in custody for a period of 21 months as under-trial prisoner as well as after conviction.

8. The learned Advocate for the State submitted, that the injuries caused by the appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were simple injuries. He further submitted that there was sudden quarrel over the land dispute and as such the sentences awarded to the appellants are rather harsh.

9. I have taken into consideration the submission made by the learned Advocates before me and I have gone also through the R 8 P of the learned trial Court as well as through the impugned judgment.

10. Since admittedly injuries caused by the present appellants were simple injuries and furthermore, there was a sudden quarrel over land dispute, in my opinion ends of justice will be fully met, if the sentences awarded to appellants are reduced to the period already undergone by them, in view of the facts and circumstances of the incident in question.

11. Therefore, while dismissing the above appeal on merits, 1 alter the sentences awarded to appellants under sections 324/34 and 326/34 to the period already undergone by them and maintain the fine of Rs. 500 on each one of them and in default of payment of fine each one of them to suffer further R.I. for period of 3 months. Appellants are given two weeks time to pay the fine imposed on each one of them. In case appellants and/or any one of them fail 'to pay fines imposed on them, the learned trial Court is directed to issue non-bailable warrants for arrest of such defaulty appellants and remand them to judicial custody to serve the sentences imposed on them, in lieu of fine. Above appeal stands dismissed in terms of the above judgment. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.