1986 PLP 2807 (MLD)

‑‑‑S.307‑‑Sudden flare‑up‑‑Dispute over payment of wages‑‑Witnesses unanimous over causing of injury by accused to complainant‑‑Injury by knife in axilla‑‑Injury simple in nature‑‑Origin of fight not explained by prosecution‑‑No case of exercise of right of self‑defence shown‑‑Case being that of sudden flare up over payment of wages, sentence already undergone would meet ends of justice‑Amount of fine also reduced from Rs. 6,000 to Rs.

500. Allah Wasaya Malik for Appellant. Ch. Abdul Aziz for the State. Date of hearing: 11th June, 1986. Ghulam Raza (20), his father Ramzan and his brother Abdur Rehman alongwith his brother‑in‑law Jumma were tried for having murderously assaulted Sher Muhammad and for causing injuries to Ghulam Rasool. On 9‑12‑1985 Mr. Irshad Ullah Khan Sial, Magistrate Section 30, Bhakkar, convicted Ghulam Raza under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced him to seven years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 6,000 in default to undergo six months' R.I. further. The remaining three accused were acquitted. Appeal of the convict is before me.

2. The occurrence took place in front of the house of Sher Muhammad injured on 8‑10‑1982 at about 1‑00 p.m. According to the prosecution Sher Muhammad owed two rupees to Ghulam Raza which he demanded back but since Sher Muhammad put him off by saying that he would pay him the money after Juma prayer, the matter flared up and thereafter Ghulam Raza came armed with a knife, his co‑accused were armed with sticks. They reached the house of Sher Muhammad and again .demanded Rs. 2 which he refused over which an altercation took place and Ghulam Raza inflicted injuries to Sher Muhammad with the knife. One of the injuries was inflicted in the axilla which was also later declared simple by the doctor. The matter was reported at Bus Stand Kallurkot to P.W.2 Sultan Sikandar H.C. The injured were carried to the Hospital and were examined by P.W.6 Dr. Nisar Ahmad. After completing the investigation the accused were sent up for trial. They denied guilt and led no evidence in defence. However, the defence version is that in fact the complainant party was the aggressor and Mst. Maryam Phupi of Ghulam Raza and his brother Ghulam Shabbir were attacked by the complainant party.

3. Though the prosecution has admitted the injuries of Mst. Maryam and that of Ghulam Shabbir but there is no explanation of it. However, according to the doctor, those are self‑inflicted injuries. Although, the complainant has not explained the loan of rupee two but Sher Muhammad under cross‑examination admitted that the accused were helping them in collecting the grain from the field and a bag of grams was also delivered by Ghulam Raza to him and it was labour money which was due to them. Presence of Mst. Maryam who is a Phuppi of Ghulam Raza further lends support to this admission that the accused and their women were working as labourers. In all probability, the dispute took place over the payment of wages. The witnesses have tried to exaggerate the injuries caused by the other accused who have been acquitted on this ground by the trial Court. But all the witnesses are unanimous in so far as the injury by Ghulam Raza to Sher Muhammad is concerned. This injury is undoubtedly simple in nature. The doctor has not probed, its depth. True, it is a knife blow in the axilla but keeping in view the other circumstances of this case mentioned above and the fact that the prosecution has not brought all facts relating to the origin of the fight would affect the quantum of sentence. Undoubtedly, it is not a case of the exercise of right of self‑defence. It was a sudden flare up on payment of wages in which the accused used the knife. Keeping these circumstances in view, I am of the opinion that the sentence already undergone by the appellant would meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine is reduced to Rs. 500 in default to undergo one month R.I. The convict shall be released on payment of fine. S. A. Sentence reduced to undergone.