1993 P Cr (PLP)

Hafiz Tariq Nascent for the Petitioner. This revision petition through jail is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, dated 9-7-1992 whereby he affirmed the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate/Section 30, Mianwali, dated 4-4-1992 convicting the petitioner under section 307, P.P.C. and awarding him sentence of 4 years' R.I. alongwith fine of Rs.2,000 with a direction that he should also pay Rs.10,000 as compensation.

2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of this petition are that the complainant Faiz Muhammad is a watchman at WAPDA Grid Station Makarwal where there are number of Sheesham trees all around. Ghulam Haider complainant was also working there as Mali. The petitioner lived nearby and he had kept goats/sheep which would often damage such plants. On 27-7-1986 at about Deegirwaila, Ghulam Haider complainant and petitioner Zareef Khan had exchanged hot words. On the same night at about 9-00 p.m. Ghulam Haider injured P.W. alongwith Faiz Muhammad, Khan Muhammad and Jan Muhammad P.Ws. was present at the Grid Station and when he went out to make water, the petitioner caused him injuries with fire arm.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner appearing at State expense, as the revision petition is through jail, has contended that the occurrence took place in the night and there was no sufficient light in which the petitioner could be identified. He further contended that according to the F.I.R., the eye witnesses reached at the spot after occurrence, hence they could not witness the occurrence. The injured P.W. has improved upon his statement as given under section 161, Cr.P.C. because in that statement he has not mentioned about the electric light in which he recognized the petitioner/accused. Hence the case against him is not free from doubt.

4. I have heard the learned counsel at length in support of the revision petition and have carefully gone through the record and examined the contentions of the learned counsel mentioned above. The injured P.W. has mentioned the name of the petitioner as the assailant who alongwith some other persons caused injury to him. There is no background of enmity between the parties. The occurrence took place, though in the night, but there was sufficient light available at the spot in which the injured P.W. correctly identified the petitioner as his assailant.

5. Both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on the record and -I find no force in this revision petition because the Courts below' have not committed any irregularity or illegality while appreciating the prosecution evidence. The revision is dismissed on merits.

6. In the end the learned counsel submitted that the sentence given to the petitioner needs reconsideration, being a bit harsh. I find no force in this submission as injured P.W. has lost his right arm due to the injury sustained by him. Thus, no case for the reduction of the sentence is made out. The petition is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./Z-74/L Revision petition dismissed.