1989SCMRG90 (PLP)

USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 15‑7‑‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby his criminal revision No .3.14/84 against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Section M Mandi Bahauddin, dated 4‑2‑1984, for enhancement of sentences of respondents Nos.l‑5 was dismissed by the impugned judgment. On 11‑7‑1981 at 1.30 p.m. complainant Saee Muhammad (petitioner herein) on his way back from Head Faqiran was waiting for a Tonga at Bar Musa Bus Stand, alongwith P.Ws. Umar Hayat and Noor. Meanwhile, respondents Zulfiqar, Sikandar, Ijaz, Nazar and Phatta all armed with sticks came there and attacked on the petitioner. Respondents Not.' and 4 caught hold of the petitioner and took him away at a little distance on the road to Bar Musa. Respondent No.1 delivered a stick blow on the head of the petitioner as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter, all the respondents Nos.1‑5 started beating the petitioner and injured him. Both the P.Ws. Umar Hayat and Noor raised alarm which attracted P.W. Muhammad Yousaf who tried to rescue the petitioner from beating: He was also given a stick blow by respondent No.] and injured him too: After 'a threat of dire consequences to the PWs all the above said respondents left the scene of the occurrence. The petitioner was taken to the Police Station Minna Gondal where he registered a case against the said respondents. Respondents Nos.l to 5 were arrested by the police and tried under section 307/506/341/325/148/147, P.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, Section 30, Mandi Bahauddin who found all of them guilty of the offence and sentenced them as under:‑‑ (i) Under Section 325, P.P.C., each 7years R.I. with fine of Rs.500. (ii) Under section 147, P.P.C., each 2 years R.I. (iii) Zulfiqar respondent No.1, further sentenced under section 323, P.P.C. to one year R.I. The sentences of all the said respondents were ordered to run concurrently and out of total fine, if realized, Rs.1,800 be paid to the petitioner and Rs.200 be paid to Muhammad Yousaf injured P.W. as compensation or in default of payment all the said respondents shall suffer further R.I. for six months. Aggrieved by the said order, the said respondent filed criminal appeal No.4S; 8‑t against their convictions Lind sentences and the petitionser filed criminal revision No.314/84 for the enhancement of their sentences in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court who heard both the matters, vide impugned judgment dismissed the revision of the petitioner in limine and also dismissed the appeal of the said respondents with following modification:‑‑ "Each of the appellants is sentenced to the term of imprisonment which he has already undergone under section 325, P.P.C. but each of them would‑ pay a fine.of Rs:1,0()0 (instead of R's.500) or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Under section 147, P.P.C. each of the appellants is sentenced to the term of imprisonment which he has already undergone. Similarly, under section 323, P.P:C. Zulfiqar appellant is sentenced to undergo the term of imprisonment which he had already undergone with a fine. of Rs.200 or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The sentences have already been ordered to run concurrently. Therefore, the appellants shall be released forthwith from jail if not wanted in any other case, but subject to the condition that each of them will pay a fine. of u. Rs.l,(XX) and if the amount of Rs.50X) is paid by the appellants in the 'Nl' form of fine, it should be paid as compensation to Saee Muhammad complainant. But if the appellants do not pay up the fine as compensation to Saee Muhammad P.W., then each of them will furthee 't' `~;‑%' undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Similarly if fine of Rs.200 is realized from Zu1Gqar appellant, it should be paid as compensation to Muhammad Yousaf P.W. or in default thereof he should further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment." We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the judgments of the Courts below in the fight of the evidence recorded in this case. According to the medical evidence, the petitioner had received 31 injuries which were caused by blunt weapon. All the injuries were found simple in nature except injury No.7 which was received by the petitioner on his hand and was declared by the doctor as meta c,_rpal bone fracture being grievous in nature. However, none of the injuries was placed on any vital part of the petitioner. But no X‑Ray was carried out of the said injury to ascertain whether it is really a bone fracture or a simple hurt. These are, therefore, sufficient grounds to cast doubt on the nature of injury No.7 received by the petitioner as grievous. Moreover, the injury received by P. W. Muhammad Yousuf from the hands of Zulfiqar respondent No.1 was also simple in nature. From the above facts it transpires that the intention on the part of respondents Nos.1‑5 was not to kill the petitioner but was to teach him a lesson by giving him good beating, otherwise they could easily kill him by delivering fatal blows with their sticks on some vital part of the petitioner's body as he lay on the ground. However, respondents Nos.l‑5 were convicted by the trial Court on 4‑2‑1984 and their appeal before the High Court was finally decided on 15‑7‑1984 after a period of more than five months. In our view the period undergone by the said respondents in prison as a punishment, is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Under the circumstances, we are, therefore, of the opinion that the I learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court after a thorough scrutiny of the evidence on record took judicious view to modify the judgment of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show us any legal defect there in A which needs interference by this Court. Hence, the petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. M.A.K./S‑229/S Leave refused.