2002 PLP 1446 (MLD)

(1) A lacerated wound 5 c.m. x c.m. bone deep on left side of head at top. He also examined Ghulam Rasool P.W.4 and found the following injuries on his person:‑‑ (1&2), 2 contused marks at top of right shoulder each 3 c.m. to 2 c.m. (3) A contused mark back of left shoulder 6 c. in. x 2.5. c.m. (4) A contused swelling in front of left thigh on lower part 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. The same doctor was also examined as D.W.1 and stated that on 14‑11‑1996 at 12‑05 a.m. he medically examined Fatima Bibi accused and found the following injuries on her person:‑‑ (1) A contused mark on right elbow on enteriorly 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. (2) A contused swelling on right forearm 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. (3) A contused mark on right upper arm 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the same day, he also medically examined Mst. Rifat Bibi accused and found following injuries on her person:‑‑ (1) A contused swelling at back of right hand 5 c.m. x 5 c.m. with a wound 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. into mussle deep. (2) A contused swelling at back of left hand 6 c.m. x 6 c.m. with a lacerated wound 1.5 c.m. x 0.75 c.m. into bone deep. (3) A contused mark on right side of head 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. (4) A contused mark at the backside of right side of chest 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. Dr. Asif Ali Khan, S.M.O. RW.11 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Latif on 4‑12‑1996 at 3‑45 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person:‑‑ External Examination: (1) Head lacerated wound on front at part of head x 3 c.m. long. (2) Head lacerated wound on top of head 2.5 c.m. long. (3) Head lacerated wound on the top of head just left lateral to injury No.2.l c.m. long. (4) Head lacerated wound right ear pinna 3.5 c.m. alongwith miled bruise on adjacement scalp (temporal right side). (5) A mild bruise on lower lip .5 c.m. x .5 c.m. The ocular account was furnished by Ghulam Rasool who supported the version of F.I.R. and narrated the prosecution story and stated that in the alleged occurrence, the other P. Ws. were attacked by the accused and injured by Sota blows. In the same occurrence, Ghulam Nabi, Iqbal and Latif (deceased) were also injured by the accused. They were medically examined. Ghulam Nabi son of Roshan P. W.13 was also injured in the same occurrence. He corroborated the prosecution story as an eye‑witness. His statement is in line with that of the statement of Ghulam Rasool P.W.4 (complainant). Manzoor Ahmad P.W.2 had escorted the injured P. Ws. to the hospital for their medical examination. He also attested the recovery memo. Exh. P. E. whereby Mahboob accused led to the recovery of Sota P.I. Ali Akbar P.W.5 had identified the dead body of Latif after post‑mortem examination. Munawar Hussain P.W.7 had attested the recovery memo. Exh.P.G. whereby blood‑stained earth was taken into possession by the 1.0. Nazir Ahmad P.W.8 had attested the recovery memo. Exh. P. H. and Exh. P. I,. whereby Ayub accused got recovered the weapon of offence. Muhammad Anwar, F.C. P.W.9 had produced last‑worn clothes of the deceased before the I.O. which were taken into possession by the said I. O. Aziz Ahmad P.W.12, S.H.O. P.W.16 and Abdul Majid Kiani P.W.10 had investigated the case. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. and they denied the allegations and claimed their innocence and false involvement. Muhammad Ayub accused gave detailed reply to the question No.5, as to why the case against them and P. Ws. deposed against them. His reply is as under:‑‑ Actual facts are that on the night of occurrence I alongwith my wife Fatima Bibi and my daughter Mst. Rifat Bibi, Zubaida, Kalsoom and Zohra were present in our house and some of our relative ladies who had come to attend the marriage ceremony of Akhtar son of Rehmat were discussing our family matter in our house, when the ladies of complainant party Mst. Rahila and Bushra tried to listen our conversation. I alongwith other ladies asked them what they are doing here and why they are listening our talks. Both of them felt aggrieved abused my wife and me and exchanged abuses us. Both of them went away with their threats that they will see them and teach them lesson. So, the male members of the complainant party 7/8 number armed with Sotas attacked our house, injured my wife and daughter Rifat. In the meantime I was in my house and I came out to rescue my wife and daughter Rifat from the complainant party and took them inside the house. On listening the hue and cry my other daughters and women from the house of Rehmat, where they were beating the drum for marriage ceremony, came on the root top of our house and threw bricks to refrain the complainant party enter our house and to inflict more injuries to us. The complainant wanted to murder us. There was exchange of brick‑bats between the complainant and women from our side During which the complainant party received injuries from brickbating. The male members from our side participated the occurrence. The complainant party aggressed attack and injured us. Mst. Rifat Bibi accused also appeared, got her statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The trial culminated into conviction as mentioned above. The appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence through Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2000 while the complainant has filed Criminal Revision. No.361 of 2000 for enhancement of the sentence. Both the matters are being decided by this single judgment K Learned counsel for the appellants bas argued that the F.I.R. was recorded with inordinate delay of 3/4 days after consultation and deliberation and the story has been concocted that the defence plea is more probable, reasonable and believable. It was quarrel between the women family and male member/appellants had not participated ‑in the occurrence and they have been falsely implicated: that the P. Ws. are closely related inter se and to the deceased and their testimony has not been corroborated from any independent source. The prosecution case is doubtful and the appellants be acquitted by accepting their appeal. Conversely, the appeal has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant and for the State. They have supported the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the complainant has also argued for enhancement of sentence of the appellants. Heard. Record perused. The occurrence took place at 9‑10 p.m., while the statement Exh.P.F. was got recorded by Ghulam Rasool, at the police station at 12‑05 a.m./night at a distance of 8 kms. The names of the appellants has been mentioned in the F I.R. Exh.P.F. with their specific roles. Ghulam Rasool, complainant, Ghulam Nabi P.W.13 and Latif deceased were got admitted to the hospital by the police on the same night and they were medically examined. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the F.I.R. has been recorded with inordinate/unexplained delay after deliberation, has no force. The appellants were nominated accused in the F.I.R. having caused injuries to Muhammad Latif (deceased). Ghulam Nabi P. W .13 and Ghulam Rasool P.W.4 with their respective Sotas. The defence plea is that the appellants were not present at the spot anti their participation in the alleged occurrence is not correct and convincing. The nature of injuries on the deceased and the P.Ws. cannot be result of brickbats. The presence and participation in the occurrence of the appellants have been established by the injured P.Ws. and the same was proved during the investigation. However, Fatima Bibi and Rifat were also injured in the same occurrence and they were medically examined at 12‑02 a.m. on 14‑11‑1996 by the same doctor Shafiq Ahmed who was examined as D.W.1 and according to the doctor, their injuries are although minor in nature but cannot be self‑suffered the injuries of these two ladies have been suppressed and had not explained in the F.I.R. by the complainant. The motive as alleged by the prosecution has not been proved during the trial. There is no previous enmity between the parties. It is also admitted fact that there was a marriage ceremony in the neighbour house and, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that the quarrel took place between the womenfolk of both the families which resulted into altercation between the parties and injured P. Ws. and the appellant might have arrived at the spot with their respective weapons, after Mst. Fatima and Rifat were insured from the side of the complainant and at the spur of moment a fight took place and Muhammad Latif, Ghulam Nabi and Ghulam Rasul were inflicted Sotas blow by the accused/ appellants, therefore, all the appellants are responsible for their individual act and the injuries attributed to each of them. The occurrence took place in front of the house of the accused Muhammad Ayub and Ghulam Nabi wherefrom blood‑stained earth was taken into possession and it seems a sudden tight under provocation for causing injuries to ladies of accused party and was not premeditated attack, therefore, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I am convinced that conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. is not sustainable under the law and case of the appellants falls under section 302(c), P.P.C. instead of section 302(b), P.P.C. as they caused blunt‑weapon injuries in order to take revenge of their insult by brickbats. Conviction is, therefore, altered from section 302(b), P.P.C. to section 302(c), P. P. C. As far quantum of sentence is concerned, taking the case of the appellants on the basis of their individual liabilities, Mahboob and Rafaqat had been attributed simple injuries to Muhammad Latif (deceased), their sentence is reduced to the period having been undergone by them. The fatal injuries on the head of Muhammad Latif (deceased) have been attributed to Yaqub and Shafaqat which are grievous in nature, therefore, they are sentenced to 14 years' R.I.' instead of imprisonment for life. The other sentences are maintained. However, all the sentences shall run concurrently with benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. The appeal is dismissed with the above modification. The criminal revision filed by the complainant is also dismissed having no force. H.B.T./M‑1179/L