1985 P Cr (PLP)

Pervaiz Aftab for Petitioner. S. Zawar Shah for the State. Date of hearing: 30th October, 1982. Dost Muhammad alias Dosa aged 35 years was tried with 2 other; on the charges under sections 307, 325 read with 34, P.P.C. by Ra Muhammad Amin Khan, Magistrate Section 30, Sahiwal for causing simple as well as grievous injuries to Lal (P. W. 2) on 24‑11‑1980 at about 9 / 10 a.m. in his fields situated in the area of Chak No. 23/14 L, within territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Shah Kot District Sahiwal. The learned trial Court acquitted Ghulam and Nawaz accused persons by giving them benefit of doubt but convicted Dost Muhammad under section 325, P.P.C. and sentenced him to 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months' R.I. It was also directed that Rs. 500 out of fine so realised shall be paid as compensation to Lai P.W. Dost Muhammad filed an appeal before the Sessions Court challenging his conviction which was marked for disposal to Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal who while maintaining the conviction under section 325, P.P.C. reduced the sentence to one and a half years' R.I. only. It may be mentioned here that the learned Additional Sessions Judge omitted to impose the sentence of fine vide his order, dated 10‑7‑1982. Being aggrieved Dost Muhammad petitioner has filed the instant revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence both.

2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at motion stage at some length and ultimately he conceded that on merits the conviction of the petitioner was unassailable because the order was based on overwhelming ocular as well as medical evidence. The revision petition was therefore, admitted on the solitary ground to examine as to whether the sentence of one and a half years awarded to the petitioner, was excessive in the circumstances of the case or not.

3. I have heard the learned counsel at some length who argues that Dost Muhammad petitioner was allegedly armed with a hatchet at the time of occurrence, and had given single blow with its blunt side on the back of the chest of Lai Muhammad P.W. He avoided to use the right side of the hatchet and also refrained from repeating the blow. He next contends that the motive behind the attack was that the injured P.W. being Tracker suspected the petitioner for stealing bed‑sheet (Dohar) of Abdullah Lohar. It appears to be too flimsy a motive to ignite the trouble. The facts and circumstances indicate that there might have been exchange of abuses in a sudden row between them and the feelings might have risen high so as to prompt the petitioner to give a blow with an ordinary stick usually carried by a villager which resulted in the fracture of two ribs of Lai P.W.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State could not successfully controvert the aforesaid arguments. I also feel that there is some force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I also find that the petitioner did not make a pre‑planned attack rather it occurred suddenly and in the heat of the moment. He also did not repeat the blow. Again the motive alleged by the prosecution is doubtful. In these circumstances I am inclined to view this case with indulgence. I feel that the sentence is a bit harsher and also the learned Sessions Judge committed the illegality by having omitted to impose the sentence of fine, because section 325, P.P.C. contemplates that the sentence of fine "shall" be imposed besides the sentence of imprisonment upon a convict. I, therefore, in exercise of my revisional jurisdiction while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under section 325, P. P. C., sentence him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 or default toy undergo imprisonment for 6 months. The total fine if realised shall be l paid as compensation to Lai Muhammad the injured P.W. With the aforesaid modification, this revision petition stands dismissed. S. G. D.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence modified.