1994 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Hanif son of Ghazi alias Gaji, Ghulam Farid and Ghulam Murtaza 'sons of Mahram were convicted by Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Okara on 14-3-1993 and sentenced to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default of payment to further undergo six months' R.I. each under section 354, P.P.C. Under section 324, P.P.C., they were sentenced to seven years' R.I. each and a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. for one year each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. They have appealed.

2. The prosecution case is that on 1-6-1991 at about 8-00 a.m., Mst. Panan Bibi P.W.1 (18) was proceeding to the field with meals for her father. When she came out of the village Abadi, she was surprised by Muhammad Hanif, Ghulam Farid and Ghulam Murtaza appellants. Muhammad Hanif was carrying a hatchet while the others were armed with Sotas. Ghulam Farid and Ghulam Murtaza caught hold of her and asked her to company them. She resisted on which Muhammad Hanif inflicted a hatchet blow on her neck. On the alarm, Azam and Muhammad Ameer P.Ws. reached the spot. On their intervention, the appellants fled away. Mst. Panan Bibi became unconscious on account of the injuries suffered by her.

3. The motive for the offence was that the appellants wanted the hand of Mst. Panan Bibi for Muhammad Hanif appellant. She and her father were not willing to accept the proposal.

4. On receiving the information, the police reached the hospital and recorded the statement (Exh.PA.) of Mst. Panan Bibi on 1-6-1991 at 1-15 p.m.

5. During investigation, Muhammad Hanif appellant led to the recovery of hatchet P.1 vide memo. Exh.P.B. attested by Muhammad Ameer, Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Mazhar, S.Is.

6. Mst. Panan Bibi was medically examined and an incised wound 10 c.m. x 3 c.m. deep going on right side of base of neck was found. On the basis of X ray examination, the injury was declared simple.

7. The prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of Mst. Panan Bibi P.W.1 and Muhammad Ameer P.W.2. They furnished the ocular account. Dr. Abid Hussain P.W.3 had medically examined Mst. Panan Bibi aged 18 years. Mazhar Iqbal, S.I. P.W.5 investigated the case. Azam P.W. was given up being unnecessary.

8. The appellants denied the prosecution allegations. According to them, Mst. Panan Bibi P.W. was injured early in the morning by some unknown person when she was going to answer the call of nature. They attributed their involvement on account of enmity. No oral evidence was led in defence.

9. Relying upon the ocular testimony, corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned. trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as described above.

10. Criticising the judgment; it is stated that the parties were inimically disposed towards each other and that Ghulam Farid and Ghulam Murtaza appellants had been found innocent and that no motive is attributed to them. It is further stated that no drag marks were found on the person of Mst. Panan Bibi. Conviction of the appellants under section 354, P.P.C. in the circumstances discussed above is assailed. The conviction of the appellants under section 324, P.P.C. is also assailed on the ground that since hurt had been caused the appellants would be liable only to the punishment provided for the hurt caused.

11. Mst. Panan Bibi P.W.1 had received an injury of long dimension on the neck which is characteristic of hatchet. According to her, she was given the said injury by Muhammad Hanif because she had declined to accept his proposal for marriage. She stands corroborated by Muhammad Ameer P.W.2 who was working in the nearby fields at the relevant time. He was cross examined at length but he stood the test. Both of them stand corroborated by the medical evidence.

12. In this view of the matter, the prosecution case stands fully established against Muhammad Hanif appellant. So far as Ghulam Farid and Ghulam Murtaza appellants are concerned, the prosecution case does not appear to be free from doubt. Neither any motive nor any injury is attributed to them. E) Moreover, they were found innocent during investigation. In these circumstances, giving the benefit of doubt, I set aside their conviction end sentences and acquit them of the charges. They shall be released if not required in any other case.

13. As regard Muhammad Hanif appellant from the material on record, the offence under section 354, P.P.C. is not established against him. He is, therefore, acquitted of the said charge. But the offence of causing hurt to Mst. Panan Bibi is fully proved. Since the injury suffered by her was simple in nature with sharp-edged weapon and had not exposed the bone, the offender namely C Muhammad Hanif appellant would be guilty of Badi'ah punishable under section 337(ii). Accordingly, I alter his conviction from section 324, P.P.C. to section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. and sentence him to three years' R.I. with benefit of section' 382-B, Cr.P.C. He shall also pay Rs.10,000 as compensation to- Mst. Panan Bibi P.W. failing which he shall undergo six months' imprisonment. The appeal of Muhammad Hanif appellant is disposed of in the above terms while that of the other appellants is allowed. N.H.Q./M-1630/L Order accordingly.