1992 PLP 1859 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S.325/34‑‑‑Sentence‑‑‑Accused had been behind the bars for more than two months‑‑‑Occurrence had taken place about ten years back‑‑‑Sentence of one year's R.I. awarded to accused was reduced to imprisonment already undergone by them in circumstances with enhancement of sentence of fine of the accused to whom grievous injury was attributed. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioners. Mian Abdul Qayyum Anjum for the State. Date of hearing: 1st March, 1992. Farid and his sons Ghulam Muhammad and Ghulam Rasool were tried by Magistrate Section 30, Jhang. Videl9dgment, dated 5‑12‑1982, they were convicted under section 325/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to one years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default thereof 6 months' R.I. Out of fine, if recovered, Rs.2,000 were ordered to be paid to Muhammad Bukhsh, the injured P.W. as compensation. They appealed. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhang, vide judgment, dated 4‑4‑1983 acquitted Ghulam Rasool and dismissed the appeal of Farid and Ghulam Muhammad petitioners. They have filed this revision petition.

2. Lai complainant (P.W.1) lodged the F.I.R. (Exh.PA) on 21‑8‑1982, the occurrence having taken place on 17‑8‑1982 at Deeger Wela. According to the version in the F.I.R. the complainant and his son Muhammad Bukhsh, the injured (P.W.) were present near their cattle when Ghulam Rasool accused called Muhammad Bukhsh to help him in lifting the fodder. When Muhammad Bukhsh reached near the place of the petitioners, Ghulam Rasool raised a Lalkara to him and Farid and Ghulam Muhammad injured him with Sotas. The motive given was that 8/9 days before the occurrence Muhammad Bukhsh P.W. and Mukhtar, a brother of Ghulam Muhammad petitioner, had a quarrel in the Kabaddi play and Ghulam Muhammad had thrown a threat. It is also in the F.I.R. that as the petitioners party had been pressing for compromise the matter was being reported late.

3. The eye‑witness account was given by Lai, Majeed and Muhammad Bukhsh (P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4). Doctor Muhammad Latif (P.W.6) had medically examined Muhammad Bukhsh P.W. on 18‑8‑1982. He found as many as 13 injuries on his person by a blunt object, all simple, except injury No.10 which was declared grievous. It was on the left fore‑arm and the bone was fractured.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not attend though he is a local lawyer and his name appears in the list, so the counsel for the State has been heard and record appreciated with his help. The eye‑witness account' is given by Lai, Majeed and Muhammad Bukhsh P.Ws. They are independent and disinterested witnesses. Muhammad Bukhsh is injured and he was jot medically examined on the morning of the next day of occurrence. The motive part of the story was reiterated, that is, the dispute between Muhammad Bukhsh and Mukhtar, the brother of Ghulam Muhammad petitioner. Hence the appreciation made by the two Courts below is perfectly correct.

5. The revision petition against conviction is, therefore, dismissed. However, from the statements of the witnesses it is clear that the grievous injury is ascribed to Ghulam Muhammad petitioner. Ghulam Muhammad has been behind the bars during and after the trial for about three months and Farid for more than two months. The occurrence took place in the year 1982 and so sending the petitioners to jail again would not be in the fitness of things. Hence maintaining the conviction the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners would suffice. The sentence of fine of Rs.1,000 or in default thereof 6 months' R.I. in the case of Farid is maintained. The fine of Rs.1,000 in case of Ghulam Muhammad petitioner is enhanced to Rs.5,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I. The petitioners would deposit the fine in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate within one month otherwise they would be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence. Whole of the fine, if realised, shall be paid to Muhammad Bukhsh injured P.W. as compensation. When the order was being announced, the learned counsel for the petitioners entered appearance and requested that he be heard. He has been heard. The only point urged by him is that injury No.10 to Muhammad Bukhsh P.W. could not be considered to be grievous as it was never X‑rayed, but the statement of the doctor is very much clear that the injury is grievous and no X‑ray was advised. No cross‑examination was directed challenging his opinion. Hence the argument has no force. It is rejected. N.H.Q./F‑30/L Sentence reduced.