1976 P Cr (PLP)

4. The contentions raised before me in revision were nearly the same as raised during the trial and the appeal. The main contention was that the ocular witnesses being inimically disposed towards the petitioners and there being no corroboration to their testimony, the conviction of the petitioners upon their evidence was not justified. Anwar Khan complainant (P. W. 2) had admitted: For the last 18 years, the accused had been fighting with w on land dispute. He, thus, admitted enmity with the petitioners and even stated: Due to this enmity the accused attacked and injured him (Ashraf P.W). About Hanif (P. W. 4), it was pointed out that in the result of a litigation, a decree had been passed against him at the instance of Yaqub Khan co-accused, by the Union Council. Hanif had denied the decree but a copy of it was produced as Exh. PF. A similar decree dad been passed against Nasir Khan (P. W. 5) by the Union Council at the instance of Ghauns Khan petitioner. This, too, had been denied by Nazir Khan but a copy of the decree in question was produced as Exh. DE. The witness, however, admitted that his brother Bashir had appeared as a P. W., on behalf of Amjad brother of Anwar Khan complainant) against Ghauns Khan petitioner in a case under section 452/392, P. P. C. He further admitted that Haque Nawaz son of Ghazi had appeared as P. W. against him, Asharf Khan P. W. and others in a case under section 326, P. P. C. He, however, denied that Haque Nawaz was a brother of Ghauns Khan. Haque Nawaz who was produced as D. W. 1 testified that Ghauns Khan was the son of his mother's sister. From all this it was urged that all the eye‑witnesses were interested ones and could not be relied upon unless sufficiently corroborated, which corroboration was not available. Enmity provides a double‑edged motive both to the complainant and the accused party. It is enmity that prompts the accused, in most cases to attack their victim. However the Court as a matter of caution look for corroboration to the testimony of witnesses who are proved to be on inimical terms with the accused. Nevertheless, there is no such inflexible rule and a conviction can be based even upon the testimony of a hostile witness depending upon the circumstance of each case and the quality of the evidence. Vide Shoni v. Bahadri etc. (PLD1965 SC111) and Nazir Hussain v. Muhammad Shaji etc. (PLD 1965 SC188) Ashraf Khan, the injured in the case, is supported by his brother Anwar Khan. Admittedly there had been enmity between them and the accused party for a long period. They are, however, supported by Hanif and Nazir Khan. I do not agree that the material on record shows such deep‑seated enmity between Hanif and Nazir and the petitioners as would render their testimony unreliable in the absence of corroboration. They are not related to the injured. They are natural witnesses. Hanif had his house 70/80 yds. away from the place of occurrence. Nazir Khan had seen the occurrence when he was coming to the village. The medical account also fully supports the ocular testimony. They can, therefore, be believed.

5. The delay in lodging the F. I. R., was again brought up as had been done in the lower Courts. I find that the delay has been explained and as such is of no consequence.

6. It is contended that the presence of only 3 injuries was found to dispel the allegation that the attack had been made by four assailants each armed with a spear. The contention proceeds from an assumption that each assailant should have inflicted more than one injury. No such assumption can necessarily arise. The injuries have been duly accounted for by the eyewitnesses. The injuries are also compatible with the weapons used by the petitioners. The chest injury has been shown to be a punctured wound. Learned counsel next urged that injury No. 1 had wrongly been held to be grievous, The reason for declaring that injury as grievous, in the of the Medical Officer (P. W. 1) is I declared injury No., 1 to be grievous because the nosal bone had been cut. I agree that I did not declare it serious due to any facial deformity. Nor any facial deformity had been caused. The contention is not without force for the Medical Officer has not given sufficient justification for treating the injury as grievous. It was held in Asmat Ullah w. State (P L D 1961 Lab. 506) : Unless a bone is cut through and through, a mere cut in the bone would not make the injury as grievous. It is the fracture or the dislocation of a bone which fall in the definition of a grievous hurt. But even if the injury was not grievous, that would not alter the offence, which would remain under section 307, P. P. C. because the blows directed at the head and chest region are such that if the victim had died thereof, the petitioners would have been liable to murder.

8. Learned counsel also urged that the witnesses could not be believed for the reason that they bad suppressed the injuries found on the person of Fazil Khan. The contention has little force because, in the first instance, it has not been duly established that Fazil Khan bad received the injuries at the hands of his victim. His own witness Dr. Muhammad Tahir (P. W. 4) admitted that the incised injury on Fazil Khan appeared to have been caused by some light sharp‑edged weapon, including a blade. In the second instance, the prosecution case cannot fail merely because the witnesses failed to account for injuries on the person of the accused.

9. I find no force in the defence version of the occurrence which had not even been put to the injured Ashraf Khan or the complainant. In the first instance, the use of sickle is not in the statement of Fazil Khan. It is also not explained why if the complainant had aggressed and inflicted injuries upon Fazil Khan, no complaint had been lodged about it with the police or a direct complaint filed in Court. The defence version, therefore, appears to be an afterthought and had been rightly disbelieved.

10. The conviction of the petitioners is, therefore, justified. On the question of sentence, although I am normally reluctant to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction I feel that in view of the actual damage suffered, which is the receipt of three simple injuries, the sentence even after reduction by the appellate Court is on the high side. The petitioners upon their conviction on 23‑9‑1966 remained in the jail from that time till 22‑7‑1967 when they were bailed out by this Court. They have, thus, undergone imprisonment for 10 months. I, therefore, reduce their substantive sentences to the period already undergone by them but enhance their fines to Rs. 400 in the case of Ghauns petitioner, and Rs. 200 each in the case of Abbas Khan and Fazil Khan petitioners. The sentences awarded to them in default of the payment of fines will be the same as ordered by the trial Court. Half the amount of the line subject to the minimum of Rs. 200 if realized, shad be paid as compensation to the injured namely Ashraf Khan P. W. with this modifica tion in the sentence, the revision, petition is disposed of. Order accordingly.