' This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5-5-2003 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Daska, whereby, having tried the appellants in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,201, dated 14-8-1991; under sections 334/337-D/34, P.P.C. Police Station Satrah, District Sialkot, they were convicted under sections 334/ 337-D/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to seven years each and to pay Arsh amount to the injured with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution story, as unfolded through F.I.R. Registered on the statement of the complainant, briefly stated is that on 14-8-1991, in the area of Village Rampur, with the jurisdiction of Police Station Satrah, the accused persons Arshad and Anwar while armed with "Bughda" amputated the left hand of the injured Boota from the wrist and Anwar had given "Bughda" blows and Arshad had facilitated Anwar by resorting to "Japha" to the said injured Boota complainant.
3. After having completed legal formalities and having completed investigation of the case, the police submitted challan against the accused to face trial before the learned Court of competent jurisdiction, where, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses.
4. The accused, when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution case attributed involvement to false implication and claimed trial.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal, submitted that the appellants have falsely been involved in this case, that in fact some other person had committed the offence in question, that no eye-witness was present at the time of the occurrence, that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, that the occurrence took place in 1991, conviction and sentence was awarded in 2003 which shows that the appellants have already gone through the agony of trial and appeal for about 13 years, that the recovery witness was not cross-examined, that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses that no case is made out that the doctor, who conducted the Medico-legal examination of the victim, was not produced so the ocular account is not corroborated by the medical evidence, that the recovery witness P.W.3 who did make statement before the learned trial Court, was not produced on application of the appellants although he was summoned but did not appear, that conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants is against the weight of evidence on record, that the judgment of conviction has been passed on surmises and conjectures that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond an iota of doubt and that, in the afore-referred circumstances, after having accepted the appeal, appellants be acquitted from the case. Relied on 1987 SCMR 33; 2004 SCM R 1723; 2004 PCr.LJ 1906; 2004 M LD 1457; PLJ 2004 Crl.
Cases Lahore 986 and 1993 PCr.LJ 366.
6. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General, Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, while defending the impugned judgment of conviction submitted that the appellants have committed a heinous offence that the ocular account is corroborated by the medical evidence that this job could not have been done alone by Anwar appellant unless he was not actively assisted by some other accused and in the present case it was Arshad appellant who after having taken the injured into his "Japha" had thrown the victim on the ground to enable appellant Anwar to inflict "Bughda" blows in consequence whereof left hand of the victim was amputated, that the injured himself appeared before the learned trial Court with his amputated hand which has been observed by the learned trial Court that already a lenient view has been taken by the learned trial Court by not awarding maximum sentence provided under the law that it is a well- reasoned judgment that the same is in accord with the weight of evidence on record, that since it does not warrant interference by this Honourable Court, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants against the said judgment is liable to be dismissed after having maintained the sentence so awarded through the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the evidence with their able assistance and have also given anxious consideration to the submission made by the respective parties at the bar.
8. In the instant case occurrence took place on 14-8-1991 at 9-30 a.m., the matter was reported to the police at the Civil Hospital by victim Boota on the same day 10-15 a.m. Whereafter formal F.I.R.
Was lodged after fifteen minutes Star-witness of the case is Boota who himself has appeared before the learned trial Court as P.W.1. Medical Report of the injured Boota is on the record. To satisfy its consciousness, this Court had directed the learned Law Officer to get information about the doctor who had conducted the Medico-legal examination of the complainant/ victim. After having established contact with the concerned quarter, this Court was apprised on 21-6-2004 that Dr. Abdul Ghaffar was out of Pakistan and there was no possibility of his coming to Pakistan in the near future. This Court was left with no option to decide the appeal on the basis of the evidence available on record which was sufficient to establish case against both the appellants.
9. Admittedly the left hand of the complainant/victim was amputated. The victim has himself appeared before the learned trial Court as P.W.1 to support the prosecution case and showed his amputated hand in that condition and there is a mention to the said effect in the impugned judgment. So the ocular account was corroborated by the medical evidence. There was no need to further corroborate the prosecution case. Even otherwise, it was not possible for Anwar appellant alone to amputate the hand of the victim. It was Arshad appellant who after having taken the injured into his "Japha' had thrown him on the ground to enable appellant Anwar to inflict "Bughda" blows in consequence whereof left hand of the victim was amputated. The precedent case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is of no avail to him as the same is not applicable in present case as the facts of those cases are distinguishable. The manner in which the left hand of the victim was amputated is callous and brutal one. The appellants did not remain content full on having amputated the victim's hand but picked the same and had thrown it in a nearby field which shows their state of mind. The learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view while awarding the sentence to the appellants, therefore, I see no reason to further take any lenient view regarding the quantum of sentence.
10. After having adjudged the case from every angle and having sifted grain from the chaff, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed having no merit and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the learned trial Court is maintained in its totality.