1987 PLP 2665(2) (MLD)

Muhammad respondent herein and Ahmad were accused of having caused grievous hurt with blunt weapon to Muhammad Ashraf petitioner herein in furtherance of their common intention on 11-10-1967 at noon time due to old enmity. According to medical evidence furnished by Dr. Muhammad Aslam (PW.8), Muhammad Ashraf petitioner suffered 6 injuries, out of which one involving fracture of bone of right ankle was declared grievous and rest were simple. According to doctor injuries No.4 to 6 could be self-inflicted.

2. The prosecution case was supported by Amir (PW.2), Hidayat Ali (PW.3) besides Muhammad Ashraf petitioner (PW.4).

3. The accused denied the allegations and examined Talib Hussain (DW.1) and Ahmad son of Kamir (DW.2) in their defence who stated that Muhammad Ashraf PW had suffered injuries in a road accident when a Scooter had collided with his cycle, he was riding, at the relevant time.

4. Learned trial Court disbelieved the defence version and accepting the prosecution story, held both accused guilty u/s.325/34 PPC and sentenced them to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.300 each or in default to undergo further R.I. for six months each. Feeling aggrieved, they filed an appeal in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) who vide his judgment dated 26-11-1971 acquitted Ahmad and altered conviction of Muhammad (respondent) from 325 to 323 PPC and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.150 or in default to undergo three months' R.I. Feeling dissatisfied with this order the petitioner (injured witness) has preferred instant revision which was admitted to regular hearing in June 1972 against Muhammad respondent only to examine if he was awarded inadequate sentence? It was also directed that this revision shall be heard alongwith the appeal, if any, filed by the respondent. It appears that Muhammad respondent has not filed any appeal.

6. Despite registered notices issued to the parties, no one has appeared. Even the State is not represented. The matter is 15 years old so instead of adjourning it, I have myself gone through the record and also perused the impugned judgment. There existed old enmity between the parties obviously therefore Muhammad Ashraf's testimony could be acted upon if corroborated by other evidence. Hidayat Ali one of the eye-witnesses is an independent witness who stated that when he reached the spot, he found Muhammad Ashraf lying injured and two persons were running away from mere. One of them was identified by him as Muhammad respondent. He could not recognize the other. Learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that Muhammad respondent was consistently charged by Hidayat Ali and Muhammad Ashraf P.W. and, thus, held that Muhammad respondent was proved to have injured Muhammad Ashraf petitioner, but it is not clear that grievous injury was inflicted by him or by the person who was not identified. In this view of the matter learned Additional Sessions Judge altered his conviction from 325 PPC to one under section 323 PPC and fined him as indicated above.

7. The maximum sentence provided under section .323 P.P.C. is one year R.I. or fine of Rs.1,000 therefore, it cannot be said that p the sentence awarded to the respondent is illegal. However, the sentence of fine imposed appears to be inadequate but the perusal of appeal file shows that, the respondent remained in jail for more than 2 weeks before his sentence was suspended. He certainly remained in jail as under trial also for some time when initially arrested by the police. Complete 15 years have elapsed since filing of this revision. Much water had flown under the bridges, and the parties must be living in peace, as is apparent from the fact that none have cared to appear, In the circumstances it would not be worthwhile, at this stage, to enhance the sentence of the respondent. Consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed. M.Y.H./M-398/L Petition dismissed.