1984 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 31st May, 1982. Akbar Ali, Mubarak and Noor Muhammad, petitioners, were convicted by Magistrate Section 30/Judicial, Pakpattan, District Sahiwal, under section 325, read with section 34, P.P.C. and sentenced to 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500 each. In default of payment of fine they were ordered to undergo further R.1. for 6 months each, vide his order dated 19th December, 1981. By the same order, the learned Magistrate acquitted Zafar Din and Ghulam Rasool, co-accused of the petitioners.

2. The incident had taken place on 1st October, 1979 at about 4 p.m.. in the vicinity of Chah Lathianwala within-the revenue estate of village Akalgarh. The report was lodged by Muhammad Luqman P.W. 3 on 3rd October, 1979 at 10 a.m. at Police Station Chak Bedi, district Sahiwal, which was recorded by Nazir Ahmad, Muharrir H.C. P.W.1 vide Exh. P.A. Motive of the offence was stated to be that a small amount of Rs. 6 was due to Liaqat Ali from Zarif. When this amount was demanded by Liaqat Ali, both of them quarrelled with each other but the matter was patched up due to the intervention of complainant Muhammad Luqman and P.Ws. Shamshad and ldrees. The same day, at Dopehrwela, Ghulam Rasool (acquitted co-accused) and Mubarak Ali, petitioner, armed with Kulharis; Akbai: Ali and Noor Muhammad, petitioners, armed with Sotis and Zafar Din armed with Pahora, came to the spot and raised Lalkara to Shamshad and Zarif P.Ws. Ghulam Rasool (since acquitted) caused injury with Kulhari to Shamshad P.W. which hit on his head and he fell on the ground. Noor Muhammad, Akbar Ali (petitioners) and Zafar Din (since acquitted) also caused injuries to him with their respective weapons. The alarm raised by the P.Ws. attracted Habib Ullah and Allah Noor P.Ws. to the spot. When Muhammad- Idrees, P.W. intervened, he was also by the accused party.

3. At the trial, the prosecution produced 8 witnesses including the injured P.Ws. namely, Shamshad P.W. 6 and Idrees P.W.7 in support of its case. Their injuries were proved by Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Medical Officer, P.W:2 who had medically examined them on 2nd October, 1979. Exh. P.B. is the medico-legal report and Exh. P.B/1 is the X-Ray report in respect of the injuries of Idrees P.W. According to the doctor Idrees suffered 4 injuries. including one-grievous injury as he had suffered fracture of his right forearm. Shamshad P.W. had suffered 9 injuries in all, out of which injury No.3 was found grievous as his left arm was found fractured Muhammad Nawaz, A.S.I., P.W.5, investigated arrested the petitioners and also the acquitted accused and them to Court after usual investigation. The trial Magistrate convicted the petitioners and acquitted the rest as indicated in para. 1 above.

4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while deciding the appeal of the petitioners observed that since the trial Magistrate had acquitted Zafar Din and Ghulam Rasool who in fact, were responsible for causing grievous hurt, therefore he acquitted the petitioners from the charge under section 325, P.P.C. because they were responsible for causing only simple hurt to Shamshad P.W. Accordingly the learned Sessions Judge converted their conviction from section 325/34, P.P.C. to one under section 323/34, P.P.C. and also reduced their sentence to one year R.I. each.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not challenged the legality or correctness of the conviction of the petitioners, but stated that the sentence awarded to the petitioners was excessive at any rate. According to him, the maximum sentence provided for an offence under section 323, P.P.C. is one year R.1. and the petitioners have been awarded the full dose. He maintained that the incident did not take place on account of any deep rooted enmity between the parties rather it was a sudden flare up between the two obstinate youths over the trivial debt of Rs.

6. The circumstances do not show that the petitioners had made any concerted attack on the complainant party, and therefore, they deserve indulgence by this Court at least on the point of sentence.

6. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel carefully and I find that it is a fit case for reduction of sentence. By now the petitioners have served about 5 months' imprisonment out of the total sentence of one year.

7. I feel that the requirements of this case would be fairly met if the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone.

8. The result is that the conviction of the petitioners is maintained but the sentence is reduced. S.G.D. Sentence reduced