1989 PLP 2943 (MLD)

S. 323/325/149--Injured prosecution witnesses who were present at the spoi gave a detailed account of occurrence involving each accused--Said witnesses were cross-examined at length but their credibility could not be shaken- Statements of other prosecution witnesses who also furnished detailed account inspiring confidence--Medical testimony reporting one of the injuries to be grievous--Courts below gave cogent reasons in their judgment against accused and relied upon ocular account which was corroborated by recoveries and medical evidence--Interference declined by High Court in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Abdul Wahid for Petitioner. The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that the petitioners were tried by a Magistrate 1st Class, Kharian, for offences under section 323/325/148/149, P.P.C. They were convicted under section 323/325/149, P.P.C. to R.I. for 1-1/2 years and under section 148/149, P.P.C. six months' R.I. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. They appealed against their convictions and sentences which was heard by an Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, who vide his judgment dated 17-4-1989 dismissed the appeal. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the case against the petitioners is highly doubtful. Submits that there is nothing on the record which could indicate that the injuries received by the injured P.Ws. were grievous in nature, therefore, in the circumstances, at its best, it would be a case under section 323, P.P.C. for which imprisonment already undergone would adequately meet the ends of justice. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file. The eye-witness account has been furnished by Mania Dad who has given a detailed account of the occurrence involving each of the petitioners. He was cross -examined at length but his credibility could not be shaken. Similarly, Muhammad Riaz and Fazal Ilahi, P.Ws. 2 and 3, respectively, have also given a detailed account of the occurrence. Though the witnesses are related to Maula Dad, injured P.W., yet a perusal of their statements inspire confidence, and I hold that the same can be relied upon. Dr. Muhammad Safdar Hussain, Medical Officer, P.W.5, in his statement clearly stated that he examined Maula Dad P.W. and prepared his medico-legal report Exh.P.D. He further stated that injury No.2 vide his X-ray report No.7/331 was found grievous. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the injuries on the persons of both the injured were not declared grievous is incorrect. I have gone through the judgments impugned and find cogent reasons have been given by the learned trial Courts in arriving at the decisions. No exception can be taken to the decisions given by the learned Courts below while having relied upon the ocular account corroborated by the recoveries and the medical evidence. Resultantly, I find-no merit in the revision petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. M.Y.H./M-1389/L Petition dismissed.