1986 P Cr (PLP)

1968 P Cr. L J 837 and P L D 1964 Kar. 34 ref. Sardar Abdul Majid Khan for Applicants. Rashid Tariq for the State. Date of hearing: 24th November, 1985. This criminal revision application under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. has been filed to challenge the judgments of A.C.M. XIIth (East) Karachi and VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi.

2. The relevant facts are that applicants Syed Qaisar Ahmed and Maqbool Ahmed were tried by Additional City Magistrate, Court No. XII (East) Karachi for the offences punishable under section 324/34, P.P.C. and convicted them by judgment, dated 6‑3‑1980. They have been sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000 in default to suffer imprisonment for 6 months. It has further been ordered that if fine is recovered out of which Rs.500 be paid to injured Shahabuddin. Appellants filed appeal which has also been dismissed on 7‑2‑1983 by VIth Additional Sessions Judge Karachi. The allegation against the appellants in F.I.R. is that on 2‑11‑1976 they came to cattle‑pan of complainant Shahabuddin where Qaiser caught hold of him and Maqbool gave him injuries with knife. It is stated in the F.I.R. that this incident was witnessed by Mir Shah, Mir Arshad and so many other persons. The report was lodged on same day at 1330 hours with Police Station Malir Extension, Karachi.

3. Sardar Abdul Majid Khan, learned counsel appearing for appellant contended that eye‑witnesses Shahmir has not been examined whereas Arshad has been declared hostile. He submitted that names of P.Ws. Khalil Khan, Abdul Shakoor and Islam do not appear in the F.I.R. and also Islam did not support when Abdul Shakoor was declared hostile, therefore, there is misreading of evidence. It is also argued that according to F.I.R. two injuries were caused to complainant whereas Medical evidence shows that he sustained four injuries. He has relied on the cases reported in 1968 P Cr. L J 837 and P L D 1964 Kar. 34.

4. Mr. Rashid Tariq, Advocate appearing for the State does not support the conviction.

5. The first Information Report of this incident was lodged by injured Shahabuddin without any delay, in which he specifically stated that Qaiser caught him while Maqbool caused him injuries. He in his evidence Exh. 2 supported his F.I.R. stated that he was given injuries by Maqbool with knife on left arm wrist and on the left side of leg on the bottom of thigh. The Medical Officer Dr. Usman Exh. 8 has stated that he found three injuries on Shahabuddin and one scratch. The Doctor was not cross‑examined. His evidence support the version given by complainant. He has not been cross‑examined nor complainant has been put any question so far injuries are concerned. P.W. Arshad Exh. 6 did not support but he has stated that he saw Shahabuddin having two injuries. P.W. Shahmir could not be examined as his whereabouts were not known. On this process server Shaikh Hyder Exh. 9 has been examined. P.W. Khalil Khan Exh. 3 has supported the case and no enmity has been proved, by the appellants with this witness. Abdul Shakoor Exh. 5 stated that complainant came and fought with Qaiser when Shahabuddin who fell down and he sustained injury on leg. He has stated that Maqbool was not present. This witness has been declared hostile. He has admitted the presence of applicant Qaiser and fight. The applicants have riot taken plea of self‑defence or otherwise. P.W. Islam Exh. 7 has stated that he saw accused and complainant fighting outside the Bars. He admits the incident. He has not been cross‑examined. The names of Khalil, Shakoor and Islam though do not appear in F.I.R. but it is mentioned therein that so many other persons came at the time of incident. The evidence of Islam and Abdul Shakoor has gone unchallenged as such incident even according to them is admitted and their presence is not disputed.

6. Applicants in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. have not alleged any enmity with complainant or witnesses. They have stated that they do not know why witnesses are deposing against them. They have not examined any person in their defence. The enmity with complainant and witnesses not proved.

7. I have gone through both the judgments. The trial Court has discussed the entire evidence and has rightly convicted the applicants. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the appeal has considered all points and his decision is well reasoned. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of two Courts below. The evidence has now properly apprised and concurrent findings call for no interference. This Revision having no merits is dismissed. The bail bonds of applicants are cancelled. They shall be taken to custody and they should serve out the sentence. H.A.K. Revision dismissed.