1986 P Cr (PLP)

(1) A Sharp cut on the bridge of the nose measuring 6 c.m. x 4 c.m. with cartilage of a part of nasal bone completely gut Nearly half part of the nose is missing. (2) The upper lip measuring 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. x skin and muscles completely cut and missing. (3) Bruise and swelling on left wrist measuring 9 c.m. x 3 c.m. x superficial on left wrist. (4) Bruise and swelling on back of left shoulder measuring 10 c.m. x 4 c.m. x superficial. (5) Bruise 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x sup on outer side of left upper arm. (6) Complains of pain on left thigh back side. (7) Two lacerated wounds measuring 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x skin deep and 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x skin deep on left skin nearly in middle. According to the doctor, injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were caused with sharp‑edged weapon and injuries Nos. 3 to 7 with blunt weapon, within duration of 6 to 10 hours. The doctor declared injuries Nos. 1 and 2 as grievous. In cross‑examination he stated that the injured when brought to the hospital was in his full senses.

6. At the trial, prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case. Muhammad Ramzan Shah, injured (P.W. 3) narrated the occurrence. Ghulam Rasool (P.W. 1) and Mst. Bachal (P.W. 2) corroborated him.

7. The appellants when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied the allegations levelled against them and also denied the recoveries allegedly effected from them. Karim Bakhsh, however, took up plea of "Ghairat" saying that he saw Muhammad Ramzan Shah with Mat. Bachal in objectionable position and was provoked and that in Ghairat he had cut off the nose and lip of Muhammad Ramzan and also gave nesting to Mst. Bachal. They examined Muhammad Bakhsh (D.W, 1), father of Ghulam Sarwar (complainant). He stated that Muhammad Ramzan, injured P.W. lived in Lal Sohanra who developed relations with his family and then abducted his wife Mat. Sharman and after obtaining a decree of dissolution of marriage had married her. Subsequently, he became friendly with his son Ghulam Sarwar P.W. and developed illicit relations with Mst. Bachal, his son's wife. He protested over it and also tried to persuade Ghulam Sarwar P.W. to stop Muhammad Ramzan Shah P.W. from visiting his house but he did not agree. About the occurrence, he stated that on the fateful day in the morning he heard alarm at a distance of 5/7 Acres from his house. He went there and saw Karim Bakhsh (appellant) present at the spot, whose nose had been cut off. The persons present there informed him that Karim Bakhsh had found Muhammad Ramzan Shah and Mst. Bachal in objectionable position in the cotton field and had cut off Muhammad Ramzan Shah's nose in Ghairat.

8. The learned trial Court on consideration of evidence on record believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the appellants, as indicated above, hence this appeal.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as for the State and also for the petitioner in the connected criminal revision. I have also gone through the record with their assistance.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the P.Ws. examined in this case are interested and have falsely implicated Muhammad Yar, Allah Bachaya and Ibrahim, appellants, therefore, they deserve to be acquitted. According to learned counsel, the occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged by Karim Bakhsh who having seen Muhammad Ramzan Shah and Mst. Bachal in objectionable position and cut off his nose and lip under grave and sudden provocation and as such the offence committed by Karim Bakhsh at the most falls under section 335, P.P.C. and not under section 326, P.P.C. as held by the trial Court. Learned A.A.‑G. has supported the impugned judgment.

11. The time and place of occurrence are not denied by the defence. Only question to be determined in this case is whether the attack was made by Karim Bakhsh alone or the other appellants were also with him at the time of occurrence and the second question is whether Karim Bakhsh was under grave and sudden provocation when he cut off the pose and lip of Muhammad Ramzan.

12. If Mst. Bachal (P.W. 2) had an affair with Muhammad Ramzan Shah then her husband would have been the last person to support the version of Muhammad Ramzan. Muhammad Ramzan and Mst. Bachal are rather the eye‑witnesses of the occurrence who have clearly implicated all the accused persons. According to them, Muhammad Yar, Allah Bachaya and Ibrahim had given injuries with sticks to Muhammad Ramzan and when he fell down he was secured by them while Karim Bakhsh chopped off his nose and lip. This version stands corroborated by the medical evidence as well. Furthermore, it is not believable that Karim Bakhsh would have succeeded in chopping off the nose and lip of Muhammad Ramzan single‑handedly. Such an act could only be performed when the injured is held fast by some persons thereby facilitating the other to chop off nose of the victim. As for Muhammad Bakhsh (D.W.1), it may be stated that he is 60 years old and whatever he deposed it favour of the appellants was in the nature of "hearsay". He claimed to have learnt from certain persons, that it was Karim Bakhsh alone who had cut off the nose and lip of Muhammad Ramzan P.W. on seeing Mst. Bachal and Muhammad Ramzan P.Ws. in objectionable position. But he did not disclose the name of any of those persons from whom he had learnt it. His evidence as it stands at present is worthless being hearsay. There is nothing on record to show that Karim Bakhsh appellant, was in any manner related to Mst. Bachal, therefore, store of Ghairat put up by Karim Bakhsh is also without any foundation. To the contrary, Ghulam Sarwar P.W., husband of Mst. Bachal P.W. vehemently denied that Muhammad Ramzan had an affair with his wife His statement is sufficient to debunk the defence plea.

13. The prosecution story stands fully proved by disinterested and independent. eye‑witnesses besides Muhammad Ramzan, victim of aggression. The learned trial Court has not violated any principle of appreciating the prosecution evidence and rightly believing the prosecution case convicted the appellants and inflicted on then appropriate sentences. In, the result, the appeal 'being without an merit is hereby dismissed. Muhammad Yar, Allah Bachaya and Ibrahim appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall b arrested and committed to jail to serve out the remaining part of their sentence.

14. As I have found the sentence as appropriate, the revision praying for enhancement of sentence stands dismissed. S.A. Appeal dismissed