1989 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 27th July, 1988. Naseer Ahmad and Muhammad Naeem were tried under section 307/34, P.P.C. by Magistrate Section 30, Lahore, for having launched a murderous assault on Muhammad Afzal, Bus Driver and lqbal Hussain, conductor, on 23‑9‑1972, at 7‑30 p.m. when Muhammad Afzal P.W. was driving bus at Route No. 31 in Lahore. Both of them were. convicted by the learned Magistrate under section 307/34, P.P.C. vide judgment dated 31‑5‑1976 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each. The appeals filed by them separately before the Sessions Judge were dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide order dated 2‑11‑1976 However, the sentence was reduced from two years' R.I. to one year's R.I. each.

2. Naseer Ahmad filed Criminal Revision No. 1014 of 1976 while Muhammad Naeem filed Criminal Revision No. 1025 of 1976, challenging the orders of the lower Courts. As both the revision petitions arise from the one judgment, they are being disposed of together.

3. Prosecution case .at the trial was that Muhammad Afzal (P.W.1) was driving bus to the office of L.O.S. from Bakkar Mandi via Route No.

31. While on way, he heard noise and stopped the bus. He saw Naseer petitioner grappling with Iqbal Hussain conductor of the bus. Nacem petitioner was also present there armed with a suawa. He inflicted an injury with a Suawa on the: abdomen of Iqbal conductor.

4. Nine witnesses in all were examined at the trial. The ocular account was deposed to by Muhammad Afzal (P.W.1), Iqbal Hussain (P.W.2), Irshad (P.W.3) and Iftikharuddin (P.W.5). P.Ws. I and 3 clearly named Muhammad Naeem to have calased an injury to lqbal Hussain (P.W.2). Iftikharuddin (P.W.5) did not see infection of injury to anyone. Dr. Kalimuddin, who had examined lqbal Hussain appeared as P./W.8. He had noted a lacerated wound, 1/6" x 1/8" on the abdomen, on lumber region 6" from the umbilicus. The injury was opined to have been caused by a blunt weapon and was declared simple. Although it has been stated in the F.I.R. that Afzal P.W. was also given an injury by the accused but neither any P.W. stated about that nor any medical evidence was produced.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the participation of the petitioners in the occurrence. He has, however, contended that even according to the prosecution the occurrence had taken place as a result of dispute about purchase of tickets by the accused and that since the injury caused to lqbal Hussain was also found simple and caused by a blunt weapon, provisions of section 307/34, P.P.C. were not attracted to the case. Learned counsel submitted that the infliction of a simple injury also shows that the petitioners had no intention to launch a murderous assault.

6. Notwithstanding the fact that learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the participation of the petitioners in the occurrence, I have gone through the evidence on record and have come to the conclusion that the statements made by the eye‑witnesses about the participation of the petitioners in the occurrence do not smack of any doubt and inspire confidence. However, There seems to be weight in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner s that f the provisions of section 307/34, P.P.C. are not attracted to the case. No doubt the injury was found to have been caused on the vital part of the body but the, nature and dimension of the injury shows that it was not caused with the intention to commit the murder. No case for attempt to commit murder, therefore, stands made out. The conviction of the petitioners under section 307/34, P.P.C. is, therefore, set aside and instead they are convicted under section 323/34. P.P.C.

7. As for the sentence is concerned, it is worth noticing that the occurrence had taken place in 1972 and the petitioners had faced agony of trial till May, 1976. The appeals filed by them were dismissed in November, 1976. Their revision petitions are pending since then. A period of about sixteen years has passed since after the occurrence. The petitioners remained under arrest after the occurrence and remained in jail as convicts after the judgment of the trial Court and also after the dismissal of their appeals by the Additional Sessions Judge. In the circumstances, I am of the view that sentence already suffered by the petitioners will meet the ends of justice. Order accordingly. The revision petitions are dismissed with the above alteration in the sentence. S.A./N‑183/L Sentence altered.