1989 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑Ss. 323, 325 & 34‑‑Prosecution case against accused sufficiently explained and substantiated by testimony of independent witnesses‑‑Delay in lodging first information report also fully explained‑‑Conviction maintained. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 323, 325 & 34‑‑Sentence‑‑Revision against conviction and sentence of accused heard after twelve long years while accused earned expectancy of liberty‑ No untoward event had taken place between parties‑‑Sentence of accused reduced to one already undergone. Ch. Hafeez Ahmad for Appellant. Arshad Mehmood for the State. Date of hearing: 10th July, 1988. In a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 61/71 dated 13‑6‑1971 at Police Station Chapprar District Sialkot under section 325/34, P.P.C. petitioners, Farman Ali, Nur Hussain and Manzoor were convicted and sentenced to one year's R.I. while Shabbir, petitioner, was convicted and sentenced to three months' R.I. by Magistrate 1st Class/Assistant Commissioner, Sialkot on 25‑7 1974; however, on appeal, the conviction was altered from 325/3.1 to 323/34. P.P.C., and the sentence of first three petitioners was reduced to 9 months' R.I., while that of the fourth was maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sialkot vide judgment, dated 9‑8‑1976. which has been impugned in these proceedings.

2. According to the prosecution, in the evening of 12‑6‑1971, complainant Sardar Khan P.W.1 on his way to home from tubewell, was waylaid by the petitioners; Farman Ali raised Lalkara, hurled abuses and gave a fist blow on his face, as a consequence whereof his upper tooth was broken, Shabbir caught hold of him, while the remaining two petitioners inflicted number of stick blows on his person. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Hussain P.W.2, Ghulam Akbar P.W.3 and Sain P.W.4. The motive of the occurrence was stated to be that the complainant had divulged to the police an information concerning a secret distillery maintained by the petitioners. It is further revealed in the F.I.R. that due to petitioners fear, the complainant on that night could not go to the hospital for medico‑legal examination, which had to be postponed till the following day. Initially the F.I.R. (Exh.P.A.) was lodged at Police Post Kotli Loharan, on the basis whereof formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.A/1) was recorded at Police Station Chapprar.

3. The eye‑witness account was given by Sardar Khan P.W.1, Muhammad Hussain P.W.2, Ghulam Akbar P.W.3 and Sain P.W.4; whereas Khuda Yar appeared as P.W.5, vouching recovery of Solis P.1 and P.2 from the courtyard of the house of Nur Hussain petitioner, (the other recovery witness Musharaf Hussain was not produced). Aslam Baig, A.S.I. the Investigating Officer, appeared as P.W.G, while Ghazanfar Khan Dispenser P.W.8, tendered in evidence medico‑legal report of Dr. Mehtab Akhtar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital (as the latter was not available since he had proceeded abroad).

4. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners under section 325/34, P.P.C. as discussed above, which, on appeal was altered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to 323/34, P.P.C. on the ground that no corresponding injury was found on the lips, and reduced the sentence of 3 petitioners as mentioned in para. 1 supra.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the F.I.R. has been lodged belatedly and that there was no corresponding injury on the lips, therefore, it was a case tooth extraction rather of injury, thus the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of doubt; and in the alternative, he has prayed that the sentence may be reduced to the one already undergone. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State was supposed the Judgment.

6. Adverting to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it may be observed that mere delay in lodging of the F.I.R. is not fatal to the merits of the case, as the same has been sufficiently explained in the F.I.R. Likewise, non-observance of injury on the lips does not demolish the prosecutions case, which is fully substantiated by the testimony of independent witnesses. Mere relationship of Muhammad Hussain P.W.2 with the complainant in the absence of any enmity does not cast doubt on his veracity, similarly Ghulam Akbar P.W.3, though had appeared as witness against the petitioners, but that matter was C subsequently compromised thus the ill‑will, if any, had lost its sting. Therefore, I am of the opinion that impugned judgment is unexceptionable.

7. However, since this revision petition has been heard after 12 long years and the petitioners have advanced in age by nearly two decades since the occurrence, and have earned expectancy of liberty, specially when no untoward event, reportedly, has happened between the parties; therefore, I am of the view that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone, which amounts 1/3 of the sentence awarded to them. Order accordingly. M.Y.H./F‑102/L Order accordingly.