1970 PLP 603 (SCMR)

WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-‑The three petitioners Gulzar, Mir Muhammad and Shan Muhammad alias Shana were tried under section 326/34, P. P. C. for cutting the nose of Bostan. The learned Magistrate, First Class, Abbottabad by judgment dated the 31st March 1969, convicted all the three petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each. In case of default in payment of fine, each of them have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another one year. 3/4th of the fine is to be disbursed to Bostan by way of compensa tion. The petitioners challenged this order in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1969, in the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, but their conviction was upheld by judgment dated the 12th August 1969. The petitioners seek special leave to file an appeal against the said order of the High Court. The prosecution case is that on the 12th December 1968, Bostan son of Peer Khan aged 22 years accompanied by his two minor brothers Sultan and Makhana, residents of village Gorhi Dakhli Dabran of the Nara Police Station, went out to the jungle in the morning for bringing fuel. They returned to their house without bringing fuel but the nose of Bostan was found cut. Bostan informed his mother Mst. Sufaidi Jan that Gulzar, Shana and Mir Muhammad attacked him in the jungle. They threw him on the ground. Gulzar cut his nose with a knife which was given to him by Shana. Mst. Sufaidi reported the matter next day to the Police Station, Nara, at a distance of about 12 miles from village at about 12‑00 noon. She alleged that she could not come earlier for report out of the fear of the accused. The petitioners were arrested on the 15th December 1968, and challaned in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate and were sentenced as stated above. Mr. Maqbul Illabi Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that there was inordinate delay in the lodging of the F. I. R. and this has weakened the prosecution case. The contention of the learned counsel is without force. The explanation given by Mst. Sufaidi Jan that out of fear she did not lodge the report earlier is quite plausible. It may be that the parties might have been negotiating for compromise and, therefore, the matter was not reported earlier. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has not produced Sultan and Makhana who had accompanied Bostan to the jungle for bringing the fuel. Admittedly, they are minor persons and their non‑production cannot affect adversely the case of the prosecution. The occurrence in question took place in broad daylight. It cannot be said to have been committed by one person. The petitioners have, therefore, been rightly convicted on the evidence of Bostan. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed. Leave refused.