2026 PLP 1321 (YLR)

Ss. 334, 337-L(2) & 34

Causing shajjah-i-khafifah, hurt, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Accused were charged for causing injuries to the complainant through kicks, fists and sticks

Prosecution case hinged primarily on the testimony of the injured complainant, whose account was direct, consistent and medically corroborated

Injured/ complainant had unequivocally stated that on 03.08.2022, at about 06:45 pm, while proceeding to a shop in village, he was assaulted by the appellants by beating him with kicks, fists and sticks, and specifically, appellant "NU" bit his right ear, causing permanent injury

Complainant's narration was not only coherent but also found support from the testimony furnished by eye-witness whose testimony also appeared to be natural and confidence inspiring

Medical evidence was furnished by Medical Officer, who examined the complainant at THQ Hospital, the same evening

Medical evidence substantiated the complainant's assertion regarding the bite injury and the assault

Site plan as well as the recovery of bloodstained garments further buttressed the prosecution case

Testimony of eye-witness corroborated the complainant's version

Although, the name of the eye-witness was not mentioned the FIR, however, this omission alone did not render his testimony unreliable

As far as injury No.2, i.e., Excoriation mark of the medial canthus of the left eye was concerned, that injury had not been attributed either to the appellant "HU" or to "NU", therefore, nobody could be convicted and made responsible for the said injury

In the present case, the eye-witness was examined during trial, subjected to cross-examination, and his account remained unshaken

Said witness had no apparent motive to falsely depose against the accused, and his presence at the scene was natural and well explained

Testimony of said eye-witness, therefore, could not be discarded merely on the ground that his name was not mentioned in the FIR

Complainant clearly stated that he was attacked by both the accused and that "NU" bit his right ear, causing him the injury

Said version was supported by the medical report, which noted that the "lower half helix portion lost extending from the middle to the lobe."

Injury was described as grievous, but the report did not mention that there was permanent disfigurement or loss of function

There was no mention of amputation or severance of the ear, nor any lasting deformity

Section 334, P.P.C applied only when there was dismemberment or permanent loss of a limb or organ

In this case, the ear injury was partial and healed

Therefore, the injury did not meet the legal standard for Arsh under the scheme of S.334 P.P.C

Nonetheless, the injury sustained by the complainant was not trivial, rather it involved a visible and painful wound to the ear, which, although not amounting to Arsh, qualified as hurt attracting penal consequences

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the injury, the Court found it appropriate to modify the conviction of appellant "NU" from S.334, P.P.C to S.337-A(i), P.P.C, read with S.332, P.P.C.

Accordingly, appellant "NU"was directed to pay a sum of Rs.100,000/- to the complainant as Daman

In default of payment, he shall remain in custody until payment of the said amount

As regards appellant "HU", the prosecution failed to attribute to him any specific act of injury

There was nothing on record demonstrating that "HU" shared a common intention with "NU" to cause the alleged injury

Mere presence at the crime scene or passive involvement was not sufficient to sustain a conviction under the penal law

In the absence of any overt act, shared intent or direct participation in the alleged injury, the benefit of doubt must be extended to appellant "HU"

Thus, the appellant "HU" was accordingly acquitted of the charges levelled against him

Appeal was partly allowed, in circumstances. Rahat Ali v. The State and another 2018 PCr.LJ 206 rel.

S. 154

First Information Report

Non-mentioning of the names of witnesses in FIR

Not fatal to the prosecution case

First Information Report is not an encyclopedic document and need not contain every detail or name of every witness

Primary purpose of FIR is to set the criminal law in motion and provide a broad outline of the occurrence

Non-mentioning of a witness's name in the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case if the witness's testimony is otherwise credible and confidence-inspiring.

Testimony of witnesses

Scope

Prosecution evidence is tested on the basis of quality of the evidence and not the quantity

Even a single testimony of a witness is sufficient to sustain conviction. Muhammad Sadiq v. The State 2022 SCMR 690 rel. Inam Ullah Khan Niazi, State Counsel. Judgment Abdul Fayaz, J.

This appeal under section 410 Cr.P.C is directed against judgment dated 22.07.2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, District Lakki Marwat in a criminal case FIR No.7l6 dated 13.08.2022 under sections 334/337 L(2)134 P.P.C registered at Police Station Naurang, District Lakki Marwat, whereby, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under: ii. Under section 337-L(ii) P.P.C, to pay Rs. 50,000/- (each of the accused) as daman in lump sum. Benefit under section 382-B Cr.P.C was extended to the appellant.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have assailed through Criminal Appeal No.l67-Bl2025 titled "Hameed Ulah and others v. The State and others" the legality of the impugned judgment as well as the sentence awarded therein, whereas the complainant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of sentence, has preferred Criminal Revision No.56-B/2025 titled "Ata Ullah v. The State and others" seeking enhancement thereof. Since both these matters arise out of one and the same judgment, they are being decided together through this single judgment.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set forth in the Murasila is that the complainant/injured (PW-01) reported the occurrence to the local police at the Emergency Room of THQ Hospital, Serai Naurang, stating that on 03.08.2022, at about 18:45 hours, he was proceeding towards the shop of one Sher Ahmad Khan to purchase household anicles. When he reached near the house of one Najib Ullah, situated in village Zafran Abad, the accused persons, namely Hameed Ullah son of Mir Payo Khan and Naimat Ullah son of Bostan, both Khattak by caste and residents of village Zafran Abad, appeared there, caught hold of him, and started beating him with kicks, fists and sticks. During the occurrence, accused Hameed Ullah caught hold of the complainant while accused Naimat Ullah bit his right ear, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his right ear and nose. The complainant further stated that he was rescued by the persons who were playing cricket near the place of occurrence, where-after both the accused fled away from the spot. The occurrence was also witnessed by other persons present nearby. He added that there was no previous enmity; however, some hot words had been exchanged between them earlier in the morning. Hence, the instant FIR.

4. After completion of investigation, a complete challan was submitted against the accused for commencement of trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced and examined as many as eleven witnesses. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the allegations but neither opted to appear as witnesses on oath nor desired to produce any evidence in their defense. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appraising the material on record, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, the instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction, whereas the complainant has filed a connected criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. Although the learned Trial Court has dealt with the matter in a comprehensive manner and, after due appraisal of the evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant, yet this Court is required to examine whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It also calls for consideration whether the appellants have been implicated with mala fide intent, particularly in the backdrop of the alleged motive between the parties, and further, whether the occurrence took place in the manner and sequence as narrated by the injured complainant.

7. For proper analysis of the case, I would like to reproduce the statements of the injured/complainant and the contents of the FIR as well as the statement of the doctor who examined the injured/ complainant. "That on 03.08.2022, I went to the shop of on Sher Ahmad Khan, in order to purchase house hold articles. When I reached near the house of one Najib Ullah situated in village Zaufran Abad, it was about 18:45 hours, in the meantime, Hamid Ullah son of Mir Qarar and Naimat Ullah son of Bostan, caste Khattak, residents of village Zaufran Abad emerged and caught hold of me and also started beating me with their kicks, fists and sticks. After beating me, Hamid Ullah accused caught hold of me while accused Naimat Ullah bit me at my right ear. Due to beating of above said two accused, I sustained injuries upon my nose and also due to the bite of Naimat Ullah, I was injured on my right ear. Thereafter, I was rescued by the persons who were playing cricket near the place of occurrence. After the commission of offence, both the accused fled away from the spot. The occurrence was also witnessed by other persons present near the spot. There was no motive with the accused, however in the morning hot words were exchanged between us. After the occurrence I was shifted to THQ hospital, Serai Naurang. Where on the arrival of local police, I reported the matter about the occurrence. My report was reduced into writing, contents of which were read over to me, which I admitted correct and signed the same in English as a token of its correctness. After registration of FIR, I also pointed out the place of occurrence to the Investigating Officer on 13.08.2022, who prepared site plan at my instance as well as the pointation of other eye-witnesses. During spot inspection, I produced my lost worn garments, i.e. one Qamiz of silver colour, stained with blood, to the Investigating Officer, which Investigating Officer took into his possession and sealed into parcel, vide recovery memo, which correctly bears my signature as one of its marginal witnesses. I have also produced medical prescription regarding my treatment to the Investigating Officer. My statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. I charge both the accused for commission of offence." Wounds: Physical assault. Patient vitally stable. On examination, Lower half helix portion lost extending for the middle to the lobe. Excoriation mark of the medial canthus of the left eye. Nature of Injury...... Grievous Probable duration of injury.... 30 minutes to one hour. After medical examination of the injured, I handed over the MLC Ex.PW-0311 to the police constable. The MLC correctly bears my signature. My endorsement on the injury sheet is Ex.PW-03/2."

8. The prosecution case hinges primarily on the testimony of the injured complainant Atta Ullah (PW-01), whose account is direct, consistent, and medically corroborated. He has unequivocally stated that on 03.08.2022, at about 18:45 hours, while proceeding to a shop in village Zafran Abad, he was assaulted by the appellants by beating him with kicks, fists, and sticks, and specifically, appellant Naimat Ullah bit his right ear, causing permanent injury. The complainant's narration is not only coherent but also finds support from the testimony furnished by Adnan Khan PW-02) whose testimony also appears to be natural and confidence inspiring. The medical evidence furnished by PW-03, Dr. Muhammad Ishaq, who examined the complainant at THQ Hospital, Serai Naurang, the same evening.

9. The MLC (Ex.PW-03/l) records the following injuries: "Lower half helix portion lost extending from the middle to the lobe. Excoriation mark of the medial canthus of the left eye. Nature of injury: Grievous. Probable duration: 30 minutes to one hour."

10. This medical evidence substantiates the complainant's assertion regarding the bite injury and the assault. The site plan as well as the recovery of bloodstained garments further buttresses the prosecution case.

11. As noted above, an eye-witness to the occurrence, Adnan Khan, was also examined as PW-02, whose testimony corroborates the complainant's version. Although, the name of the eye-witness was not mentioned in the FIR' however, this omission alone does not render his testimony unreliable.

12. So far as injury No.2, i.e, Excoriation mark of the medial canthus of the left eye is concerned, that injury has not been attributed neither to the appellant Hamidullah nor to Naimatullah, therefore, nobody can be convicted and made responsible for the said injury.

13. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the non-mentioning of the eye-witness's name in the FIR casts doubt on the veracity of his testimony. This contention, however, is legally untenable. The FIR is not an encyclopedic document and need not contain every detail or name of every witness. Its primary purpose is to set the criminal law in motion and provide a broad outline of the occurrence.

14. It is a well settled proposition of law that non-mentioning of a witness's name in the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case if the witness's testimony is otherwise credible and confidence-inspiring. In the present case, the eye-witness was examined during trial, subjected to cross-examination, and his account remained unshaken. He had no apparent motive to falsely depose against the accused, and his presence at the scene was natural and well explained. His testimony, therefore, cannot be discarded merely on the ground that his name was not mentioned in the FIR. Reference can also be made to "Rahat Ali v. The State and another" (2018 PCr.LJ 206), wherein it was observed: "The significant piece of evidence before us is the statement of Abdar Ali Shah (PW-7). As stated earlier, he has not been named in the FIR to be the eye-witness of the occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of his arguments vehemently urged that since the name of Abdar Ali Shah is not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, his testimony is not worth consideration. He was of the view that the safer course is to keep his statement out of consideration. We know that as a rule of prudent, Courts should keep out of consideration the testimony of a witness whose name is not figured in the FIR but it is not a rule of law. The Court in a fit case may go .for consideration of the testimony of such a witness if it is corroborated with other reliable evidence on record and in this view of the matter, we would see as to whether Abdar Ali Shah has witnessed the occurrence and, if so, up to what degree it has been corroborated." Even otherwise, if we keep aside the testimony of Mst. Zubaida Bibi (PW-6) even then the petitioner can be convicted on the solitary statement of Ahmed Nawaz (PW-7) as it is an established principle of law that testimony of a solitary eye-witness is sufficient to sustain conviction of an accused if the same rings true and inspires confidence and it is the quality of the testimony of a witness that has to be weighed and not the quantity of witnesses.

16. Now, the main question before this Court is whether the conviction of appellant No. 2, Naimat Ullah, under Section 334 P.P.C was legally justified, and whether appellant No. 1, Hameed Ullah, was rightly convicted.

17. The complainant clearly stated that he was attacked by both the accused and that Naimat Ullah bit his right ear, causing him the aforementioned injury. This version is supported by the medical report, which notes that the "lower half helix portion lost extending from the middle to the lobe." The injury was described as grievous, but the report does not mention that there was permanent disfigurement or loss of function. There is no mention of amputation or severance of the ear, nor any lasting deformity.

18. Section 334 P.P.C applies only when there is dismemberment or permanent loss of a limb or organ. In this case, the ear injury was partial and healed. Therefore, the injury does not meet the legal standard for Arsh under the scheme of Section 334 P.P.C. Nonetheless, the injury sustained by the complainant is not trivial, rather it involved a visible and painful wound to the ear, which, although not amounting to Arsh, qualifies as hurt attracting penal consequences. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the nature of the injury, this Court finds it appropriate to modify the conviction of appellant Niamat Ullah from Section 334 P.P.C to Section 337-A(i) P.P.C, read with Section 332 P.P.C. Accordingly, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs.100,000/- to the complainant as Daman. In default of payment, he shall remain in custody until payment of the said amount. He is accordingly taken into custody and sent to the District Jail, Lakki Marwat with a direction to the Jail Superintendent to execute the sentences according to law.