1987 PLP 1222 (MLD)

At the trial prosecution examined P.W. 1 Dr. Ratan Kumar' who had examined the complainant ha has produced the initial medical certificate as Exh.6 and final certificate as Exh.7. P.W.2 Mohammad Umer complainant, who has supported the contents of F.I.R. and has also produced the F.I.R. as Exh.9, P.W.3 Photo (is an eye-witness), P.W.4 Ghulam Ali (is an eye-witness), P.W.5 Ameer Ali S.H.O. who had conducted the investigation. He has produced Mashirnama of injuries Exh.13, Mashirnama of Vardat Exh.14, Mashirnama of arrest accused and production of Lathi Exh.15, P.W.6 Dost Ali had acted as '.a :shit of injuries and Vardat. After close of the prosecution case, statement of appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegation and has further stated that complainant was annoyed with him over charging of excessive interest from his Haris on which the accused told, Am that he should not do so, as it was unfair, on which the complainant threatened him of dire consequences and therefore, he has been falsely implicated. P.W. 1 Dr. Ratan Kumar has stated in his stated that the examined complainant Mohammad Umer on 26-6-1983, and had found the following injuries on his person: (1) Lacerated wound at the back right ear 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. (2) Lacerated wound at the front of right ear 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. (3) Contusion at the right thigh 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. (4) Contusion at the right shoulder 16 c.m. x 6 c.m. According to him the injuries were simple in nature and appeared to have been caused by blunt substance such as Lathi. P.W. 2 Umer complainant in his deposition has fully supported his F.I.R. I have heard Mr. Mohammad Hayat Junejo, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed, learned counsel for the State. The only contention raised by Mr. Mohammad Hayat, Junejo learned a rued counsel for the appellant is that according to the medical officer the injuries on the person of the complainant were caused by blunt weapon and were simple in nature, therefore, the offence, if any, will fall under section 323, P.P.C. That the appellant has remained in jail after conviction from 20-3-1984 to 2-4-1984, and the incident took place nearly four years back, and, therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice that the appellant should be sent back to serve his remaining sentence. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui appearing for the State has contended that in view of the medical evidence offence if any, will fall tinder section 323, P.P.C. and since the incident took place in June 1983, and appellant has remained in jail from 20- 3-1984 to 2-4-1984, the sentence already undergone will meet the ends of justice. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have also gone through the R&P of the case. Admittedly the medical evidence shows that the injuries caused to the complainant Mohammed Umer were view of the medical evidence the offence will fall under section P.P.C In 323, P.P.C. The appellant was arrested on 29-6-1983 and was released on bail on 7-7-1983. He was convicted on 20-3-1984 and remained in jail from 2-3 - 1984 conviction. In view of the fact that the appellant 1984 to 2-4-1984 after his conviction. In view of the fact that the appellant has remained in jail for nearly 24 days and the appeal has come up for disposal after four year. I am of the considered view that the sentence; already undergone will meet the ends of justice. Reliance is also placed on Nazir Hussain v. The State 1983 SCMR

36. I, therefore, convert the conviction and sentence of the appellant tom section 324, P.P.C. to section 323, P.P.C., and reduce the same to one already undergone. With this modification in sentence the above appeal is dismissed. I had announced the above judgment by a short order, dated 15-2 1987 and these are the reasons for the same. M.Y.H./M-145/K Appeal dismissed.