1989 P Cr (PLP)

(4) Cut wound 16 c.m. x 3 c.m. extending from right wrist joint from the front surface of the right hand passing through the right thumb and the right index finger on the back of right palm upto the wrist joint on the back. All the muscles and bones of the right hand are cut in the direction of the wound. (5) Cut wound 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the frontal surface of the right hand. Muscles and the bones underlying the wound are cut, extending from the right wrist joint towards inner surface of the palm parallel to the injury No.4. (6) Cut wound 9‑1/2 x 3 c.m. on the frontal surface and inner surface of the left hand extending from the base of the left hand to the middle of the left ring finger underlying bones and muscles are cut. (7) Cut wound 2 x c.m., on the middle of left index finger, skin deep (8) Cut wound 2 x c.m, in the middle of the left middle finger, x skin deep on the frontal surface. Injuries Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were declared grievous. The rest were opined to be simple. They were opined to have been caused by sharp‑edged weapon. During cross‑examination, the doctor stated that he had expressed the opinion about grievousness of injuries, on observation without X‑Ray.

6. Iftikhar Ahmad, A.S.I., who appeared as P.W.7, had investigated the case and arrested the appellant. The appellant had led to the recovery of hatchet P.1 while in custody, on 21‑3‑1986, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.G.

7. The evidence of recovery of hatchet at the instance of the appellant, deposed to by Iftikhar Ahmad, A.S.I. P.W. was corroborated by Nadir P.W.4.

8. The ocular account has been deposed at the trial by Muhammad Sharif complainant P.W.1, Mst. Jantan P.W.2 and Khuda Yar P.W.3. Muhammad Sharif complainant renarrated the facts given by him in the first information report. He admitted during cross‑examination that Mst. Jantan was the second wife of his father and his father had married her during the lifetime of his first wife. He admitted that he was born from Mst. Fateh Bibi, the first wife of his father. He also admitted that Dost Muhammad and Fateh Muhammad who were engaged to Kausar and Naseem were not the sons of his father from Mst. Jantan. He explained that they were born from another wife. He admitted that the Nikah of Mst. Kausar and Mst. Nasim was performed with the sons of the appellant 4 days after the occurrence.

9. Mst. Jantan who appeared as P.W.2, corroborated the statement made by Muhammad Sharif P.W. During cross‑examination she admitted that Bashir had got a case registered against Khuda Yar P.W., etc. for assault. She denied that the Nikah of Mst. Nasim and Mst. Kausar had been performed with the sons of Ramzan appellant eight days before the occurrence. She admitted that they were cultivating the land of Bashir but denied that they had been ejected. According to her, they had left the land by themselves. She denied that she was caused injuries by her husband as he suspected about her chastity. Khuda Yar P.W. 3 corroborated the statement made by P.Ws.1 and

2. In cross‑examination, had admitted that Bashir, sister's husband of the appellant had got a case registered against him and others under section 307, P.P.C. and that they had been acquitted in that case. He denied the suggestion that Mst. Jantan had been caused injuries by her husband Sardar and that they had got a false case registered against the appellant.

10. I have gone through the record and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was involved falsely in this case as Muhammad Bashir sister's husband of the appellant had earlier got a case registered against P.W. Khuda Yar and others under section 307, P.P.C. because of Khuda Yar P.W. being related to the complainant, on the very face of it appears to be without force. If the complainant or the injured witness had any intention of falsely involving any person to please Khuda Yar P.W. who was their relative, they would have done that against Muhammad Bashir who was complainant of that case. The appellant had neither got that case registered nor was a witness. Mst. Jantan P.W. had suffered a large number of injuries. Had there been any intention on the part of the complainants to involve the appellant falsely, they could have easily involved him as well alongwith Muhammad Bashir, and that would not have looked improbable keeping in view the number of injuries. The complainants had no direct grievance against the appellant. If they had any grievance, it was against Muhammad Bashir because apart from the fact that he had got a case registered against Khuda Yar P. W. etc., he according to the defence version had also ejected the complainants, from his tenancy, although the fact of forcible ejectment was denied by the witnesses during cross‑examination.

11. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the defence version put forth on behalf of the appellant that Mst. Jantan had been given injuries by her husband, and that the appellant had been involved in the case for having caused the said injuries, was more probable and worth reliance, is without any foundation. Mere suggestion put in this regard cannot be considered as evidence. The suggestion was denied vehemently by both the prosecution witnesses, i.e. Sharif and Mst. Jantan. It hardly seems possible to believe that a woman so disliked by her husband, would have been owned as a mother by the son and she would have been bothering for arranging marriages of sons of her husband from another wife. The complainant did not give out the fact that Mst. Jantan was not his real mother in FJ.R. This fact was brought out during cross- examination which means that the complainant was paying all the respects that a mother would expect of a son. This would not tic dune by a major son with a stepmother having questionable character.

12. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that Nikah of both the girls had been entered into prior to the occurrence, although finds support from the documents placed on record but as observed by learned trial Judge, those seemed to have been prepared by ante‑dating. The fact of Nikah of Mst. Nasim and Mst. Kausar having been performed with the sons of Ramzan appellant prior to the occurrence was not disclosed till late at the trial. If that had been the case, they would have come up with that fact at the initial stage of the case during investigation. The conclusions arrived at in this connection by the trial Magistrate seem to possess weight and 1 do not find any reason to differ with him. No doubt, Khuda Yar P.W. is related to the complainant who in turn is son of the injured P.W. but that by itself is no reason to throw away their testimonies. After all why should Mst. Jantan name the appellant for having caused her injuries if she had been given the injuries by anybody else. It was a day light occurrence. She could not have made any mistake in the identification. Mere registration of case on the statement of her stepson could not have forced her to accept falsehood. If the F.I.R. had been lodged incorrectly, she would have definitely come up with a contradictory statement. Having considered the ocular account, the evidence of recovery of hatchet at the instance of the appellant and the medical evidence, I am convinced that no case for interference in the judgment of conviction is made out. The same is, therefore, maintained. The sentence of 6 years' R.I. seems to be excessive in the circumstances of the case. The same is reduced to 5 years' (five years) R.I. The sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 also does not seem to be proportionate in view of the fact that there is no evidence that the appellant had enough financial status to pay such an amount of fine. The same is, therefore reduced to Rs.5,000 (Rs. five thousand). On realization of fine, a sum of Rs.4,000 shall be paid as compensation to Mst. Jantan P.W. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo S.I. for six months.

13. Since the sentence awarded to the appellant/respondent, has been reduced, the question of enhancement of sentence, does not arise. The Criminal Revision filed by the complainant is also dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1031/L Conviction upheld/order accordingly.