1968 P (PLP)

(2) Right ear was found to be chopped off and most of it was missing. (3) A lacerated wound, 1" x ", scalp deep on the left side of head. (4) An abrasion, 1", on the dorsum of right hand. (5) Multiple bruises on the back of the right chest. (6) A lacerated wound, 1 " x " skin deep on the right leg. (7) An abrasion, 1", on the right knee. (8) Multiple bruises on left knee. (9) An abrasion, ", on the left forearm. In the opinion of the doctor, injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp‑edged weapon and were. grievous in nature and the rest were simple in nature caused, with a blunt weapon.

4. The evidence of Manzoor Hussain was supported by Hayat Muhammad (P. W. 4) and Abdur Rehman (P. W. 5). Aksar accused denied the charge but stated in answer to a ques tion as to why the case was registered against:-- "The relations of Manzoor Hussain P. W. were strained with me. He had a number of enemies in the village. He had married one Mst. Sufaida who was previously betrothed to one Akbar of village Ghari and Akbar is also inimical towards him. Some one else from his enemies has assaulted and injured Manzoor Hussain, P. W. and Manzoor Hussain has falsely implicated Me in this case alongwith other co‑accused. Muhammad Ashraf and Amir Afsar both denied the charge. In support of their defence, they produced two witnesses, namely, Faiz son of Maula Bakhsh (D. W. 1) and Abdul Majid son of Muhammad Hussain (D. W. 2).

5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that there was a delay of 10 hours in lodging the report, while the distance between the scene of occurrence and the Police Station was only nine miles. The complainant was not straightaway taken by the two P. Ws. to the polite station for report and the F. I. R. was lodged after consultation with Amir Afsar, the brother of Manzoor Hussain, complainant. The prosecution did not produce any lambardar or chaukidar to whom Manzoor Hussain had, as alleged by him, given the information of the occurrence, although Muhammad Aslam Lambardar of the village was cited in the list of P. Ws. It was further contended that the time of occur rence could not be 9‑00 p.m., as alleged by the prosecution, but it must have been somewhere at sehri time, that the witnesses stated that they had left Rawalpindi at 1‑00 p.m. and reached the scene of occurrence at 9‑00 p.m. which was highly improbable, that the prosecution story is concocted and exaggerated; that no immediate motive of the offence was shown; that Abdur Rehman (P. W. 5) is related to Manzoor Hums ain while Hayat Muhammad (P. W. 6) is his associate; that their evidence is contradictory in nature, chiefly in the matter of purchases and the distance shown from where they saw the occurrence, that the prosecution evidence is not corroborated by any independent witness and that Manzoor Hussain was probably injured by his enemies at that time of the night.

6. On going through the file and the prosecution evidence, I find that the delay in making the F. I. R. has been plausibly explained as it was but natural for the two P. Ws. to take the injured to the house, and then for Manzoor Hussain it was similarly natural to have waited for the return of his brother Amir Afsar. Although Manzoor Hussain has stated that he had informed the lambardar and the chowkidar of the village, yet he has not named any of them and, therefore, it will not be correct to blame the prosecution for not producing Muhammad Aslam Lambardar, who was a witness of the recovery memo. (Exh. P. A.) The time of occurrence shown to be 9‑00 p.m., seems to be correct. If it was after 9‑00 p.m., then the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was a delay in lodging the F. I. R. falls to the ground. The P. Ws. have stated that they started from Rawalpindi at 1‑00 p.m. and had stopped at 2/3 places on the way to smoke chilam and thus reached the place of the occurrence at about 9‑00 p.m. It was full moon on the night of the occurrence. The three accused are alleged to have committed the offence from close quarters. All the three accused were known to the complainant. There was a strong motive for Aksar. He wanted to avenge the dishonour brought to the family by the complainant by having sexual relations with the mother of Aksar. There are, of course, some minor contradic tions between the statements of the three P. Ws., but they do not materially affect the prosecution case, Hayat Muhammad is a disinterested witness. Abdur Rehman is related to Manzoor Hussain. The learned trial Court has doubted his evidence, but I think he was not correct in doing so as the mere relationship would not be sufficient to discredit the witness. The medical evidence shows that Manzoor Hussain complainant had a scalp deep laceration on the left side of the head, multiple bruise on the left knee and abrasion on the right knee and another abrasion on the left arm, besides his nose and right ear having been cut. It seems that Manzoor Hussain was thrown down from the she -ass by the hatchet blow, and the two of the appellants, namely, Muhammad Ashraf and Amir Afsar caught hold of him while he was lying down, but the complainant since resisted the cutting of the nose and the ear by Aksar accused, received the bruises on the back, knees and arms. Thus it will be further clear that the offence was committed by at least three persons, and, therefore, section 34 has been rightly applied to convict all the three accused for the offence.

7. The question of the appellants is to be considered in view of the motive for the commission of the offence. Manzoor~ Hussain was responsible to bring an everlasting dishonour to the family by having sexual intercourse with the mother of Aksar who is also related to the other two accused. Such a provocation never dies in the mind and the three appellants must have throughout the period of 4/5 years smarted under this provoca tion and have been looking for a chance to avenge their dishonour. Thus in view of, this mitigating circumstance. I feel that the sentence of the three appellants is liable to reduction. The appellants were convicted on the 3rd of March 1965, and by this time more than 31 years have passed. I, therefore, partially accept this appeal and reduce the sentence of the three appellant to that already undergone. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Sentence reduced.