1989 PLP 2910 (MLD)
RIAZ AHMAD alias HAJI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2910 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad J |
| Parties | RIAZ AHMAD alias HAJI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2910 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2910 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2910 (MLD) (RIAZ AHMAD alias HAJI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 325--All the three eye-witnesses consistently supporting prosecution case- No flaw found in the testimony--Witnesses not having any animosity with the accused so as to implicate him falsely--One 15/20 years old incidence regarding litigation between complainant and accused on a dispute of house admitted by one eye-witness, but it was not considered sufficient to constitute a motive for the witness to depose against the accused falsely in the case--No discrepancy going to the root of the prosecution case found in the statements of the eye-witnesses- Sentence awarded to accused was upheld with the direction that accused be given the benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
2. Aggrieved by his conviction, an appeal was riled by the petitioner to assail the same, but the appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura on 26th of January, 1989.
3. Through this revision petition, the petitioner assails both the orders of the Courts below.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 4th of October, 1984 Bashir Ahmad complainant stated that at about 1-00 p.m. his brother Rehmat Ali was proceeding to the shop of blacksmith for getting the key of the tractor, and on his way, he came across Riaz petitioner, who started abusing Arain Bradri generally. Rehmat Ali brother of the complainant restrained him from doing so, whereupon, the petitioner remarked that since one Jan Muhammad had given beating to his brother, therefore, he was abusing. Rehmat Ali again restrained the petitioner from abusing Arain Bradri, and told him only to abuse the person who had given beating to his brother and not the Arain Bradri as a whole, whereupon, the petitioner started abusing Rehmat Ali also. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Shafique injured son of the complainant a student in the college, also arrived there, and told the petitioner that he should not insult his uncle, but the petitioner started abusing Muhammad Shafique as well, and suddenly the petitioner inflicted a Sota blow on the chest of Muhammad Shafique resulting into the fracture of his clavical bone. Injured Muhammad Shafique and Rehmat Ali raised hue and cry, which attracted Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Rafique, who intervened and rescued Shafique injured. Injured Muhammad Shafique was taken to Civil Hospital, and after obtaining the medico-legal certificate, the complainant proceeded to lodge a report at the police station. In Chowk Phhularwan Hadayat Ali A.S.I. met the complainant at 6-30 p.m. The said A.S.I. recorded the statement of the complainant Exh.PA., and then sent the same to the police station for the registration of the case. After the registration of this case, investigation commenced.
5. Petitioner was arrested, and he produced Sota which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. attested by Muhammad Ali P.W.2 and Rehmat Ali P.W.3 besides the Investigating Officer P.W.6.
6. At the trial to prove its case, the prosecution placed reliance upon the statement of Bashir Ahmad complainant P.W.1, Muhammad Shafique P.W.4 and Muhammad Rafique P.W.5. All these three eye-witnesses have consistently supported the prosecution case. I have perused their statements, and I do not find any flaw in the same. They had no animosity with the petitioner so as to implicate him falsely. Of course, one of the eye-witnesses admitted that there was a dispute about a house for which, the complainant and the petitioner were litigating with each other. This incidence is 15/20 years old. Hence, I am not convinced, that on account of previous enmity, the witness would have deposed against the petitioner falsely in this case.
7. Learned counsel argued-that there was misreading of the evidence, and the statements of the eye-witnesses suffer from discrepancies. In this regard, I have perused the statements of the eye-witnesses, and I do not find any such discrepancy which would go to the root of the prosecution case so as to demolish it.
8. It was next argued that the Radiologist had not been produced, therefore, the injury could not be declared as grievous. I have perused the statement of the doctor who had received the report of the Radiologist, according to which, the injury was declared as grievous. But the argument looses its significance in view of the conviction of the petitioner under section 324, P.P.C. Hence, this assertion has no substance, and the same is hereby repelled.
9. Learned counsel lastly contended that sentence awarded to the petitioner is too severe, that it required interference. I am afraid that I cannot interfere, because the sentence is legal, rather the petitioner has already been treated leniently. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. N.H.Q./R-138/L Petition dismissed.