1991 P Cr (PLP)

S. 324/34

Appreciation of evidence- -Accused caused injuries to two witnesses with Chhuris

No infirmity was found in statements of witnesses who had no enmity with accused to involve them falsely

Injuries of accused were explained

Judgment of Trial Court was well-reasoned and sentence was not excessive

Interference was declined. Nemo for Petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Suleman for the State. Date of hearing: 12th February, 1991. Khalid and Zahid petitioners were tried under section 324/34, P.P.C. on the charge of causing simple injuries with sharp-edged weapon to Muhammad Riaz son of Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Riaz son of Mian Muhammad P.Ws. near the shop of Muhammad Hayat on 19-4-1983. To prove its case prosecution produced six witnesses. Rab Nawaz P.W.2, Muhammad Riaz son of Muhammad Nawaz P.W.3 and Muhammad Riaz son of Mian Muhammad P.W.4 have given the ocular account of the occurrence. Muhammad Riaz P.W.3 and Muhammad Riaz P.W.4 stated that Khalid and Zahid petitioners both had given them injuries with their Chhuris. Rab Nawaz P.W.2 supported them. Dr. Sher Afzal P.W.1 medically examined the two injured P.Ws. He found two sharp -edged injuries on the person of Muhammad Riaz P.Ws.3 and 6 incised wounds on the person of Mian Muhammad. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances. Khalid raised the plea of alibi. Zahid petitioner stated that at the fateful time, the injured P.Ws. had tried to abduct him and had beaten him, so he injured them in his defence. He produced Dr. Riaz Ali in defence, who stated that on 28-4-1983, he examined Zahid accused and found one healed wound with crust formation on the left side of his head. The injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon within 10 days of his examination. The trial Court convicted the petitioners on 21-8-1983 and sentenced them to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.500, in default thereof one month's R.I. each. The appeal filed by the petitioners against their convictions and sentences was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab on 8-12-1983. No one has appeared for the petitioners.

2. Since the revision cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution, so I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. I find that the two injured witnesses have clearly stated that the petitioners had caused injuries with Chhuris on their person. Rab Nawaz has supported them. I do not see any infirmity in the statements of these eye-witnesses. They have no serious enmity with the petitioners to involve them falsely in the case. They have explained the injuries found on the person of Zahid petitioner. The sentences awarded to them are not excessive. Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere in the exercise of the revisional powers of this Court with the well -reasoned judgments of the Courts below. The revision is dismissed. The learned trial Court will issue warrants for the arrest of the petitioners. On their Arrest, they will be sent to jail to serve the remaining sentence. S.A./K-319/L Revision dismissed.