Shabbir Hussain alias Tikka aged 23 years resident of Shahnoor Studio, Multan Road, Lahore, was convicted on 3-7-1972, under section 326/324, P. P. C. By Ch. Hameed Elahi, Magistrate, Lyallpur. On the first count he was sentenced to 7 years' R. I. ; and a fine of Rs. 50 default to suffer 2 months' R. I.
Further. He was also awarded ten stripes. On the second count he was sentenced to three years' R.
I. And a fine of Rs. 50 in default to suffer two months' R. I. The fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid as compensation to Inayat and Mst. Liaqat Bibi. Both the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. Appeal of the convict and the connected revision for enhancement of sentence filed by Inayat Muhammad petitioner are before me.
2. About 11 years before the occurrence in this case Shabbir Hussain appellant's mother eloped with Talib Hussain son of P. W. 2 Inayat (injured). Appellant and his father threatened Inayat that if he failed to restore appellant's mother they would kill him. They also demanded his daughter Mst.
Liaqat Bibi's hand in marriage for the appellant. Since Inayat refused to oblige them, therefore the appellant and his father bore a grudge against him.
2. Inayat belonged to the gipsy tribe ; he lived in a tent near Nishatabad Railway Station, Lyallpur. At peshi vela on 14-12-1971, Shabir Hussain carrying a bottle, containing acid, came there ; at that time Inayat was sitting outside his tent. Shabbir Hussain threw acid on him which burnt his face and other parts of the body. P. W. 4 Mst. Liaqat Bibi, Inayat's daughter, rushed towards her father. The accused also threw acid on her and ran away leaving behind the empty bottle.
3. Inayat P. W. Was taken to the hospital the same day and was examined at 4 p. m. By P. W. 3 Dr. Imtiaz Ahmad Gil, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Lyallpur who found the following injuries on him .
(1) Acid burn on the left side of the face forehead and upper part right side of face. The eye-lids and the eyes were also involved.
(2) Acid burn on the front and the outerside of left arm.
(3) Acid burn in an area 10" x 6" on the front of chest and abdomen.
(4) Acid burn in an area 5" x 3" on the front of left thigh.
(5) Acid burn in an area 2" x 1' on the right forearm.
Injury No. 1 was declared grievous as it caused total blindness of the victim. Before her own examination Mst. Liaqat Bibi proceeded towards the Police Station, Civil Lines, with her father for making a report. On the way at the general bus-stand, Lyallpur, she met Mukhtar Alt, Head Constable and made a statement (Exh. P. C.) to him on the basis of which formal F. I. R. (Exh. P. C/1) was registered at the Police Station. The case was investigated by P. W. 9 Muhammad Masud Khan, S. I. On 15-12-1971 at 2 p. m. Mst. Liaqat Bibi was medically examined by P. W. I Dr. Mrs. H. H. Rahman, Ward Medical Officer, D. H. Q. Hospital, Lyallpur.The lady doctor found multiple: burn marks on her right cheek, superficial burn marks on the right side of her neck, chin and the right forearm.
The injuries were found simple in nature, caused by some chemical.
4. Mst. Liaqat Bibi produced her clothes and that of her father which were burnt by the acid. She also produced P-5 bottle left by the accused at the spot. These articles were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer, vide Memo. Exh. P. B. On 15-12-1971. The accused was arrested. His shirt P. 7 had acid burn marks. It was taken into possession vide Memo. Exh. P. F. After completing the investigation the accused was sent up for trial.
5. In his defence Shabbir Hussain took up the plea that he was substituted for the real culprit. He admitted that Inayat P. W. Was his father's cousin. According to him Mst. Liaqat Bibi was engaged to be married to him. Denying guilt, Shabbir Hussain said that on the day of occurrence he has gone to Inayat to demand Rs. 1,500 which Inayat had borrowed from him. As he was there one Yousaf came over and threw acid on Inayat ; since he had asked for the return of the loan, therefore Inayat falsely substituted him for the real culprit. D. W. Siraj Din, Karam Din and Abdul Ghani tried to support the defence version but they failed. Siraj Din is a brother-in-law of the appellant, Karam Din is his uncle and a first cousin of P. W. Inayat. Abdul Ghani lived near the place of occurrence. The defence witnesses deposed that they reached the place of occurrence on alarm. P. W. Inayat told them that Yousuf had thrown acid on him. This was not put to Inayat nor suggested to his daughter, Mst. Liaqat Bibi. Had there been any truth in this version, the defence witnesses would have appeared before the police during investigation, but even this was not done.
The inference is, therefore, obvious that it was an afterthought. D. W. Siraj Din said that he saw a stranger running away from the place of occurrence and did not see Yousaf there. This also contradicted the defence version. None of the defence witnesses have said a word about the nature of the dispute between P. W. Inayat and. Yousaf. It may also be mentioned that Abdul Ghani D. W. Was facing trial in a case under section 397, P. P. C. For the foregoing reasons I am of the view that the defence version was worthless.
6. So far as the prosecution case was concerned Inayat and his daughter Liaqat Bibi corroborated each other. Their statements were also supported by P. W. Inayat Hussain son of Din. Medical evidence also lent support to the prosecution case as it was found that the two witnesses suffered acid burns. The victim have no motive to falsely implicate the appellant in the case of this nature.
The appellant by himself admitted the occurrence though according to him he has been substituted for Yousaf because he demanded back loan of Rs. 1,500 from Inayat. But there is nothing to support the story of loan and his substitution for Yousaf. I, therefore, see no force in this appeal and dismiss the same.
7. Since the appellant has been awarded a sentence which is more than five years, therefore in view of the provisions of section 393, Cr. P. C he could not be awarded additional sentence of whipping which is set aside. In the connected revision the appellant wag given notice as to why his sentence should not be enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was a young boy and the sentence awarded was excessive I do not agree with this submission. The appellant was 23 years of age then. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is not a day too long for the crime committed by him ; therefore, his sentences on the two count are maintained.
Since Inayat P. W. Has become blind for life, the revision petition is accepted and the sentences of tine on the two counts are enhanced to Rs. 1,500 on each count. Fine, if realised, shall be paid as compensation to the two victims. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer sentence of one year and six months' R. I. Further.