1988 P Cr (PLP)

(3) Bruise bluish black on the back of the left hand on the inner side near the left little finger 3 c.m x 2 c. m . (4) Lacerated wound 2 c.m. x c.m. x muscle deep on the left side of the outer part of the head. (5) Bruise bluish black 10 c.m. x 1/12 c.m. on the back of the right chest on the lower part. The doctor kept injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 under observation but omitted to cite the nature of injury No.4. On seeing the x‑Ray report Ex.P.B./1 injury No.l was declared as grievous and the rest as simple. He deposed that none of these injuries was sufficient to cause death. In the post‑mortem examination of Muhammad Ramzan, deceased, following injuries were noticed:‑ (1) One stitched wound healed 21 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the front of the middle phalanx of the left little finger on the outer side. (2) Lacerated wound stitched 2 c.m. in length on back of the middle of the left little finger and the wound is healed. (3) Healed wound 2 c.m. x f c.m. on the left side of the anterior part of the head. Internal organs of thorax and abdomen were found slightly decomposed. Left little finger's phalanx bone was found fractured. In the opinion of the doctor the death occurred due to tetanus, resulting from injuries by entrance of casual organism through the wounds. All the injuries were found ante‑mortem caused by blunt weapon. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was about nine days and between death and post‑mortem examination is hours. In cross‑examination, the doctor stated that the injuries of the deceased were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, a patient attracts tetanus even due to a simple abrasion; the deceased was brought and admitted in the hospital after about 54 hours of the receipt of injuries; and the signs and symptoms of tetanus appeared in Muhammad Ramzan (deceased) on 12‑5‑1979.

6. The prosecution case hinges on the evidence of Muhammad Yar (P.W.1) and Hassan Bakhsh (P.W.7) the eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. Karim Bakhsh (P.W.2), the first informant who deposed about motive and Dr. Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.3) who gave the cause of death of Muhammad Ramzan.

7. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied that he attacked the deceased on the day of occurrence with a stick or that he suspected the deceased of having sexual relations with his mother‑in‑law. He examined three witnesses in his defence, namely, Muhammad Yar (D.W.1), Allah Diwaya (D.W.2) and Jan Muhammad (D.W.3) who stated that the appellant was a gentleman and that he did not cause the death of Muhammad Ramzan, rather he was falsely involved in the case by his in‑laws. Their evidence being in the nature of 'hearsay' was inadmissible and thus ruled out of consideration. However, learned trial Court believed the prosecution case as found in the testimony of the eye‑witnesses and convicted the appellant for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, for the injuries caused by him were not collectively or individually sufficient to cause death of Muhammad Ramzan.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the State and also perused the record.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that according to the medical evidence Muhammad Ramzan (deceased) had not died as a direct result of the injuries suffered by him in the occurrence, therefore, no offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder has at all been committed. He further argued that inordinate delay of four days in reporting the matter to police and the contradictory statements of the eye‑witnesses indicate that it was an unwitnessed occurrence. He emphasized that the appellant has not been satisfactorily connected with the crime and, therefore, deserved acquittal. Learned counsel for the State has, on the contrary supported the conviction.

11. It may be noticed that no serious injury on a vital part of Muhammad Ramzan (deceased) was found. The solitary grievous hurt suffered by him involved his finger. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries found on the person of Muhammad Ramzan (deceased) were not sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature and the 'tetanus' which supervened and proved fatal was a virus which does occur in an injured person as a matter of course. I find that the learned trial Court has misread the evidence to hold that 'tetanus' was the result of the injuries. Looking at the number, nature, seat and dimensions of the injuries of Muhammad Ramzan (deceased) I hold that the author of these injuries did not intend to cause his death or such bodily injury, which in all probability would cause his death. A doer of an act can be said to have intended or known the natural and probable consequences of his act and not beyond that. This is, therefore, a simple and straight case of voluntary causing of grievous hurt punishable under section 325, P.P.C. provided it is proved that it was the appellant who had caused injuries to the deceased.

12. The next question which falls for determination is whether or not sufficient evidence exists on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was responsible for causing injuries to Muhammad Ramzan (deceased). For this, the statements of Karim Bakhsh, Muhammad Yar and Hassan Bakhsh, P.Ws. need examination.

13. Karim Bakhsh (P.W.2), father of Muhammad Ramzan (deceased) the first informant, stated that having learnt about the occurrence through certain women of his village he went to the spot and removed his son Muhammad Ramzan to Civil Hospital, Mailsi, the same day, in an unconscious state where he regained senses on the fourth day. It is interesting to note that medico‑legal report Ex.P.B. shows that Muhammad Ramzan was brought to the hospital by one Suleman and not by Karim Bakhsh P.W. Again, the certificate shows that Muhammad Ramzan was taken to the hospital on 6‑5‑1979. Dr. Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal. (P.W.3) confirmed that he examined him at 5 p.m. on 6‑5‑1979 and had admitted him in the hospital for treatment. There is no note on this certificate nor the doctor deposed before the Court that at the time of his admission, Muhammad Ramzan (deceased) was unconscious. His injuries which are of minor nature except a grievous hurt on his left little finger. These injuries do not suggest that Muhammad Ramzan, a well‑built young man of about 40 years age would have gone unconscious due to these injuries. The complainant, therefore, stands belied by documentary as well as oral evidence of the doctor that Muhammad Ramzan was removed to the hospital by him or that he was admitted in the hospital on the day of occurrence or that he was unconscious at the time of his admission. Muhammad Yar (P.W.1) an eye‑witness of the occurrence, stated that at about noon time he and his uncle Hassan Bakhsh were threshing their wheat when Muhammad Ramzan passed near them. When lie reached near the house of Allah Wasaya, father‑in‑law of the appellant, the appellant suddenly attacked and injured him with a Sots. They challenged the appellant whereupon he ran away from the spot. All went near Muhammad Ramzan and found him unconscious. They informed Karim Bakhsh, father of Muhammad Ramzan, about the incident who came. to the spot. In cross‑examination, he stated that his statement was recorded on the third day of the occurrence, he witnessed the occurrence while standing at a distance of 50 to 60 paces away from the place of incident. He made no secret that he was 'Yak Jaddi' of the deceased.

14. Hassan Bakhsh (P.W.7) stated that he was present at his threshing floor alongwith Muhammad Bakhsh son of Allah Bakhsh when Muhammad Ramzan having passed near them went towards the Abadi. 'They heard commotion and saw that the appellant was inflicting blows to him. He ran to that place. Muhammad Yar P.W. also arrived there besides certain women of the locality. He admitted that Muhammad Yar P.W. is his nephew. According to him, Muhammad Ramzan was removed to the hospital, the same day. He, however, repelled the suggestion that he appeared as a prosecution witness on account of his relationship with the deceased.

15. It is pertinent to note that Hassan Bakhsh P.W. did not support Muhammad Yar's claim that they were threshing wheat when they heard alarm of the deceased or that they had gone together at the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Rather he stated that at the relevant time one Muhammad Bakhsh was present with him at his threshing floor. Both of them, no doubt, stated unanimously that the, injured was removed to the hospital on the day of occurrence, but this fact, as discussed above, stands disproved by the evidence of doctor. They are further belied by the doctor that Muhammad Ramzan was brought to the hospital in unconscious condition. Both these eye‑witnesses admittedly resided a mile away from the spot and the occurrence had taken place just close to the Basti and according to the eye‑witnesses named above it was witnessed by many women yet, not a single witness for that Basti has appeared to support the F prosecution. It is not believable that Muhammad namzan (deceased) was attacked and injured by the appellant in the presence of Muhammad Yar and Hassan Bakhsh P.Ws. , close relations of the deceased, yet they did not feel least concerned about him. Admittedly, they did not remove him to the hospital nor did they report the matter to police. For all these reasons I have grave doubts in my mind in Muhammad Yar and Hassan Bakhsh P.Ws., were present at the relevant time and witnessed the occurrence. Also the delay of five days in making report to the police has not been satisfactorily explained.

16. The upshot of the above discussion is that the case against the appellant is not free from serious doubts and sufficient convincing evidence to connect the appellant with the crime is badly wanting. Consequently, the appellant's conviction as well as sentence recorded by the trial Court is hereby set aside and he is acquitted. They appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. S.A./A‑253/L . Appeal accepted.