1989 P Cr (PLP)

Syed Ijaz Hussain for the State. Date of hearing: 12th June, 1989. Muhammad Rafiq petitioner alongwith Muhammad Sadiq were tried under section 324/325, P.P.C. for causing grievous as well as simple injuries to Munir Ahmad P.W1 with blunt and sharp‑edged weapons. They denied the charge, and claimed to be tried.

2. To prove its case prosecution produced five witnesses. Munir Ahmad P.W.1 (injured) stated that the petitioner and his co‑accused Muhammad Sadiq had caused injuries with hatchet and Dang on his right hand. Muhammad Sharif P.W.2, Muhammad Yaqoob P.W.3 claimed to have seen the petitioner causing injury with his hatchet on the hand of Munir Ahmad and his co‑accused Sadiq gave Dang blow on the right hand of Munir Ahmad at the time of occurrence. Dr. Abdul Ghaffar P.W.4 had medically examined the complainant. He found two simple injuries on the person of Munir Ahmad, one caused by sharp‑edged weapon and the other by blunt weapon. The injury caused by blunt weapon was declared grievous whereas the injury allegedly caused by Muhammad Rafiq petitioner with hatchet was found simple. Javed Islam A.S.I. had investigated the case.

3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied the charge. In defence, he produced two witnesses, namely, Muhammad Salim and Amir Hamza. On the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner and his co‑accused were convicted under section 325/324, P.P.C. and sentenced to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 and in default 2 months, on each count. On appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, acquitted Muhammad Sadiq co‑accused. He, however, maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 324, P.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the appellate Court has not acted upon the evidence of the eye‑witnesses including the complainant to the extent of Muhammad Sadiq co‑accused, therefore, the petitioner could not have been convicted on the same evidence without corroboration. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this petition.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care and have reviewed the evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence as well. I find that the eye‑witnesses had involved the petitioner and Muhammad Sadiq co‑accused as well but the appellate Court has acquitted Muhammad Sadiq and convicted the petitioner on the same evidence without any independent corroboration. On the examination of the nature and seat of the injury allegedly caused by the petitioner, it can safely be said that the possibility o: this injury having been caused by friendly hand or being self‑suffered cannot be excluded. Strangely enough, the doctor has opined that the grievous injury found on the right hand of Munir Ahmad P.W. could be self‑inflicted but the simple sharp‑edged injury found on thumb of right hand could not be self‑suffered. He has not given any reasons in this respect.

6. For what has been said above, I feel that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner. So the revision is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of the bail bond. N.H.Q./M‑1563/L Revision accepted.