1989 PLP 837 (MLD)

‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.323/325‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Appellate Court gave cogent reasons for relying upon witnesses of prosecution, alleged by accused to be interested‑‑Interference declined in revision. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 323/325‑‑Alteration of sentence‑‑Injury caused by accused was proved, but neither Radiologist nor anybody acquainted with handwriting of Radiologist was produced to prove his report regarding the injury‑‑Injury inflicted by accused having not been proved as grievous one, held, would fall under S.323, P.P.C.‑ Conviction of accused under S.325, P.P.C. was altered accordingly with observation that sentence of imprisonment already undergone by accused would adequately meet ends of justice. Saleem Shahnazi for Petitioner. Sharif Butt for the State. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that a case under sections 307/34 and 342/34, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioner and two others with Police Station Muridke. The learned Magistrate vide his judgment, dated 31‑1‑1979 acquitted Mst. Naziran but the petitioner and his co‑accused were convicted to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.200 in default three months' R.I. for an offence under section 325/34. P.P.C. and 6 months' R.I. under section 342/34, P.P.C. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence which came up.for hearing before Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura who vide his judgment, dated 12‑5‑1979 accepted the appeal of the conviction of the petitioner and acquitted him. However, the conviction of the petitioner was maintained. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 325, P.P.C. for having caused grievous hurt; but the prosecution did not produce the Radiologist who took the X‑Ray of the injured, therefore, the injury being grievous has not been proved. Submits that the witnesses are interested, therefore, may not be relied upon. I have heard learned counsel and perused the file. As far as the witnesses in the present case are concerned, the learned appellate Court has given cogent reasons for relying upon them. I find no justification for disagreeing with the A finding of the learned appellate Court. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Radiologist was not produced by the prosecution has some force. I have noticed that neither the Radiologist nor anybody else who was acquainted with his handwriting was produced to prove his report. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the injury received by the witness was grievous. In any case the injuries were proved but it could not be determined whether they were grievous or not. Therefore, I hold that the case against the petitioner falls under section 323, P.P.C. Therefore, I alter the conviction under B section 325, P.P.C. to section 323, P.P.C. and direct that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone would adequately meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine is however, maintained. The revision is disposed of in the terms stated above. H.B.T./H‑104/L Order accordingly.