1991 P Cr (PLP)

(2) An incised wound 4-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the head right parietal region 1 c.m. from right ear x 6 c.m. from injury No.l. (3) A bruise 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. on the left upper arm middle front side. (4) A bruise 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the back side of left hand. (5) A contusion 2-1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. on the right ear upper side.

3. All the injuries were found to be simple in nature and had been caused with sharp as well as blunt weapon. The medico-legal report is Exh. P.B.

4. During the investigation of the case on 8-6-1981 A.S.I. Javaid Ali P.W.5 the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner who on the same day led to the recovery of blood-stained hatchet from the roof of his house which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.G. After the completion of the investigation the petitioner was challaned.

5. During the trial the prosecution examined 5 witnesses in support of its case. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied having caused any injuries to the injured P.W. He also denied that he had led to the recovery of the blood-stained hatchet. Pleading innocence he asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the case due to animosity.

6. After considering the material available on record the learned trial Court vide order, dated 16-9-1982 convicted the petitioner under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 or in default to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. It was ordered that out of the fine so recovered a sum of Rs.400 was to be paid to Muhammad Ramzan the injured P.W. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner went in appeal but his appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab vide order, dated 8-8-1983

7. Still not satisfied the petitioner has lodged the present revision petition through Jail authorities.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the record.

9. Muhammad Ramzan injured appeared as P.W.1 and narrated the incident as to how and why the petitioner had attacked and injured him. His grandfather Mutali cited as an eye-witness of the occurrence, also appeared as P.W.2 but did not support the prosecution case. His statement was to the effect that he had not actually witnessed the occurrence as the same had taken place at some distance from the place where he was present. The statement of the injured P.W. is duly corroborated by the medical evidence on record and does not suffer from any infirmity. He had no previous enmity with the petitioner and therefore, the question of any false implication did not arise. Further there being a single accused the possibility of any substitution is ruled out. In these circumstances, the learned Courts below were justified in holding the petitioner guilty under section 307, P.P.C. The conviction of the petitioner, therefore, is upheld.

10. As regards sentence I am of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 was neither harsh nor excessive. The injured P.W. had suffered three injuries in the region of his head, out of which two had been caused with sharp-edged weapon. Luckily none of the injuries suffered by him was grievous in nature. The Courts below have already taken a very lenient view and therefore, I am not pursuaded to interfere with their exercise of discretion. The order of sentence is also confirmed.

11. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner may be informed accordingly. N.H.Q./M-2818/L Revision dismissed,