1991 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Hussain Chachar for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1991. Muhammad Abbas and Muhammad Hanif, petitioners, alongwith three others were tried for murderous assault on Muhammad Zubair P.W.

2. The prosecution produced six witnesses. Muhammad Zubair P.W.2 stated that at the eventful time, Muhammad Abbas armed with hatchet and Muhammad Hanif armed with Sota alongwith their companions launched attack on Muhammad Zubair. On the Lalkara raised by the three companions. Muhammad Abbas inflicted hatchet blow and Muhammad Hanif gave Sota blows to Muhammad Zubair P.W. Liaqat Ali P.W.1 and Sikandar P.W.3 supported the statement made by Muhammad Zubair P.W. Dr. Muhammad Rashid P.W.5 medically examined Muhammad Zubair and found nine injuries on his person. One was caused by sharp-edged weapon and the others with blunt weapon.

3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied all the incriminating circumstances. They produced Syed Gazanfar Ali. D.W.1 and Muhammad Amir D.W.2.

4. The trial Court convicted the petitioners under section 307/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default thereof two months' R.I. The appeal filed by the petitioners against their conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, on 5-10-1982.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the injuries have not been declared dangerous to life, so the petitioners could not have been convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. No one has appeared for the State.

6. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that none of the injuries of Muhammad Zubair P.W. was found dangerous to life or grievous. All the injuries have been declared simple. Most of the injuries were on the non-vital part of the body, so the conviction of the petitioners under section 307/34, P.P.C. was not justified and the same is hereby set aside, instead they are convicted under sections 324/34 and 323/34, P.P.C.

7. This brings me to the question of sentence. I find that the occurrence' took place in the year 1981; that the petitioners were sent to jail thrice and that they remained in jail for two and half months before they could be released on bail by this Court. After their conviction by the learned trial Court, they were not released on bail by the learned Appellate Court. In these circumstances, I feel that the agony of trial coupled with the imprisonment suffered by them as under trials prisoners and convicts would meet the case. Order accordingly. SA./M-2926/L Order accordingly.